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
  #3161  
Old 02-08-2024, 3:02 PM
NorCalBusa NorCalBusa is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,414
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I got two orders delivered by TrueShot, last one today, free shipping (2 days) and no fussing around.
Reply With Quote
  #3162  
Old 02-08-2024, 3:15 PM
NewbieDoo NewbieDoo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: So-Called City of Angels
Posts: 61
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine View Post
Ordered a bunch of HST from Berelli Thursday night several days before the stay, they confirmed it, but weren't able to ship it out on time, they sent a tracking number... and today they cancelled and refunded it.

I thought that once you had paid and they issue a tracking number, ownership transferred to me?
Getting different experiences out of Bereli. Placed my second order with them Thursday (also included HST) got a shipping number Friday evening, shipped out Monday, and was delivered today. They're good in my book.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post

In short, what the argument appears to be is that one cannot be expected to adhere to a 1791 'understanding' and ignore what has happened since in terms of civil rights. In other words, if Bruen is to be held to a clear cut standard, then look what it would entail. Thus, SCOTUS is either going to have to be more definitive or we will need to return to...
This argument isn't entirely wrong. Thomas's test is farcical, at best, but unless and until it is revamped, it's the law of the land (and it works for our purposes). To some degree, we all pick and choose when we defer to the old ways and when we make allowances to reflect modern society. For example, at the time the First Amendment was codified, there were laws restricting when, how, and how many black people could assemble without white supervision...but it wasn't seen as a conflict because the Bill of Rights didn't apply to them. That's not the case now. Our ideas of "rights," "citizens," and even "people" have changed since founding, so it would be intellectually dishonest to follow the historical analogue test without recognition of the change.

Taking it one step further, I'd say it's fair to question whether the 2nd amendment (and 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th) would even exist if it meant that that at the time it was written, black people, native people, and women would enjoy their protections.

But for now...thanks for creating a new test, Clarence.
Reply With Quote
  #3163  
Old 02-08-2024, 4:36 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieDoo View Post
...This argument isn't entirely wrong. Thomas's test is farcical, at best, but unless and until it is revamped, it's the law of the land (and it works for our purposes). To some degree, we all pick and choose when we defer to the old ways and when we make allowances to reflect modern society. For example, at the time the First Amendment was codified, there were laws restricting when, how, and how many black people could assemble without white supervision...but it wasn't seen as a conflict because the Bill of Rights didn't apply to them. That's not the case now. Our ideas of "rights," "citizens," and even "people" have changed since founding, so it would be intellectually dishonest to follow the historical analogue test without recognition of the change.

Taking it one step further, I'd say it's fair to question whether the 2nd amendment (and 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th) would even exist if it meant that that at the time it was written, black people, native people, and women would enjoy their protections.

But for now...thanks for creating a new test, Clarence.
But, therein lies the actual problem.

How do you distinguish between what you are saying and 'Living Constitutionalism?'

In both cases, it is intimated that definitions change and the 'new' meaning must hold the force of Law, otherwise, not only are we being 'intellectually dishonest,' but we become wedded to a past which no longer exists.

My perception is that Justice Thomas created another step in the road toward restoring a more appropriately 'balanced' view of our rights and the appropriate liberties to act upon them. The reality is that Life exists somewhere between strict Originalism and the absurdities of Living Constitutionalism. I believe that was what he was getting at in Bruen; i.e., that whatever is felt to be applicable to 'current' society must first be contextualized by what was originally intended by the Founders.

Were the Founders racists? By today's standards, yes. By the standards of that day, not particularly or not egregiously by societal metrics. Thus, declarations of 'racism' aren't on point. Neither are the societal metrics 'then' or 'now' particularly encumbering.

What is at issue was the Original Intent of the 'right' itself. The 'liberties' associated with that right have always had a certain fungible nature. The problems arise when the fungibility is taken to an extreme in pursuit of an agenda. A right and its associated liberties can neither be absolute nor nebulous. The question is: Where is the appropriate balance point between a right which is, practically, near absolute and the associated liberties which, by definition and effective application, must be bounded by a certain level of restriction?

As I have said before, I think this is what Thomas was after in Bruen...

Quote:
...Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to "make difficult empirical judgments" about "the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions," especially given their "lack [of] expertise" in the field...
Put another way, THT is a starting point which should inform a decision. It wasn't intended as a be all, end all, full stop. It can't be. History, as it is known and practiced, is both incomplete and relayed from a perspective. That perspective is created through myriad variables and there is no way to account for, acknowledge, or even rely on all the variables. This is why, in Bruen, it is said...

Quote:
...at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified...
At least two, meaning there could be more metrics which come into play. Thus, it cannot be as 'absolute' as many would like to make it and, practically speaking, cannot and is not supposed to be as nebulous as others want it to be. I firmly believe that this is what the Founders actually intended. It's not that the Constitution cannot be adapted for different times and it's not that the Constitution is adaptable to differing agenda. It's that the Constitution was intended as a 'handrail' and if you don't use the 'handrail' as intended, you risk falling.
Reply With Quote
  #3164  
Old 02-08-2024, 5:11 PM
eatmoredonuts eatmoredonuts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 244
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Ammo Depot shipped my order to somebody on the fuggin' e. coast. Nice.

Let's see them pull a rabbit out of their hat.
Reply With Quote
  #3165  
Old 02-08-2024, 6:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,061
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by eatmoredonuts View Post
Ammo Depot shipped my order to somebody on the fuggin' e. coast. Nice.

Let's see them pull a rabbit out of their hat.
WTF?
Reply With Quote
  #3166  
Old 02-08-2024, 6:09 PM
NewbieDoo NewbieDoo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: So-Called City of Angels
Posts: 61
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post

The reality is that Life exists somewhere between strict Originalism and the absurdities of Living Constitutionalism.
I agree with this point and appreciate your position.

Nuance, however, tends to be lost in the public discourse, and many would have us believe that if it's not one, then it's the other...it's either all sacred or none of it's sacred. To my mind, those are equally ludicrous positions, but they're easy for people to latch onto. What's hard is knowing where that point of existence is or should be. Obviously, there are extremes at either end, but there are hard questions in the center.

As it relates to Thomas' test (which I would summarize as (1) see if a similar burden was historically imposed; and then (2) see if the motivations now are similarly justifiable), I think the friction comes from the seeming conflict in morality. On the one hand, the test seeks to provide significant deference to the intent of the creators (in the form of determining whether the right had similar restrictions for those who had it at the time), and on the other hand, the test inherently disregards a portion of the creators' intent (in understanding that the right was not intended to apply to a significant portion of the population). It says "Look at the context, but don't look at that context. Look at their intent, but don't look at that intent."

I think it's fair to ask why provide so much value to part of their intent while simultaneously devaluing another part (particularly when the reason we devalue it is because, by modern standards, we find the morality of the time problematic). Put another way, "why defer to them on anything when we know better now than they did then?" The answer might be "because that's our document, and without it we're in chaos"...but I think the question is fair.

That said, I can't see how even a Living Constitutional construct justifies a background check for ammo purchases. It exists purely to frustrate the effectiveness and usefulness of kept and borne arms.
Reply With Quote
  #3167  
Old 02-08-2024, 6:37 PM
BB1776's Avatar
BB1776 BB1776 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NorCal
Posts: 438
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I would like to proclaim my love for Karen Bishop of Salmon, ID.

We have never met or even talked on the phone. I do not know how old she is or what she looks like. But I love her. And I am pretty sure she loves me, too.
Reply With Quote
  #3168  
Old 02-08-2024, 7:39 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieDoo View Post
...I think it's fair to ask why provide so much value to part of their intent while simultaneously devaluing another part (particularly when the reason we devalue it is because, by modern standards, we find the morality of the time problematic). Put another way, "why defer to them on anything when we know better now than they did then?" The answer might be "because that's our document, and without it we're in chaos"...but I think the question is fair.

That said, I can't see how even a Living Constitutional construct justifies a background check for ammo purchases. It exists purely to frustrate the effectiveness and usefulness of kept and borne arms.
The part you consider 'devalued' is a moral question and morality is greatly dependent upon the society one is in. The Constitution does not protect, identify, or dictate 'morality.' It is the very reason we have Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, etc. Remember, it was John Adams who said...



In other words, the presumption was a morality consistent with the intent already existed. However, changes to that morality were expected and that is why allowance was made for changes to the Constitution. The problem is that Living Constitutionalists don't want to allow We the People to make those changes. They want to 'dictate' them from on high or, as Neil Gorsuch put it...

Quote:
...I suspect the real complaint of living constitutionalists isn't with old laws generally so much as it is with the particular terms of this old law. The Constitution is short - only about 7,500 words, including all its amendments. It doesn?t dictate much about the burning social and political questions they care about. Instead, it leaves the resolution of those matters to elections and votes and the amendment process. And it seems this is the real problem for the critics. For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy...
Insofar as the ammunition background checks, Living Constitutionalists can justify based on an overarching agenda. Remember, if you look at the dissent in Heller, you see a completely different understanding of the 2nd Amendment than the traditional one, the latter being the basis upon which we've operated since 1776. However, with their 'modern interpretation and understanding,' the traditional version not only doesn't fit well, it is inapplicable. Thus, Bruen, with its text, history, and tradition test where you begin with those, then 'tweak,' not obviate, things as determined by modern circumstances.

As Judge Benitez stated...

Quote:
...In the first half of last year, 589,087 individuals traveled to an ammunition vendor to buy ammunition. They proved their citizenship and residency with identification documents and paid for a background check. The State's computers rejected 58,087 or 11% of them. This is an average of 322 individuals rejected every day. How many of the 58,087 needed ammunition to defend themselves against an impending criminal threat and how many were simply preparing for a sporting event, we will never know. What is known is that in almost all cases, the 322 individuals that are rejected each day are being denied permission to freely exercise their Second Amendment right -- a right which our Founders instructed shall not be infringed...
In other words, many of the People were having their right obviated and, as such, it was determined that it became the Government's burden to demonstrate a THT which allowed for that. They didn't. At least not in Judge Benitez's opinion...

Quote:
...The ammunition background checks laws have no historical pedigree and operate in such a way that they violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The anti-importation components violate the dormant Commerce Clause and to the extent applicable to individuals travelling into California are preempted by 18 U.S.C. ? 926A...
But, therein lies the crux of the matter. The decision wasn't based on an evaluation of 'morality,' whether 18th Century or 21st Century. It was based on the evaluation that a fundamental right was being denied, period. Such is consistent with how SCOTUS viewed fundamental rights in 1943...

Quote:
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
In that context, the Living Constitutionalists are attempting to adjudicate based on their 'morality,' their sense of right and wrong, and impose that 'morality' on the country as a whole. Conversely, it is the 'Traditionalists' or 'Originalists' who are attempting, as best they can, to adjudicate based on the Law and the principles laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Of necessity, are some facets of Original Intent going to be obviated by more modern events and jurisprudence? Yes. But, such does not provide carte blanche to substitute a modern sense of 'morality' for 'legal reasoning.'
Reply With Quote
  #3169  
Old 02-08-2024, 9:19 PM
NewbieDoo NewbieDoo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: So-Called City of Angels
Posts: 61
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
The Constitution does not protect, identify, or dictate 'morality.' It is the very reason we have Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, etc.

....

Such is consistent with how SCOTUS viewed fundamental rights in 1943...
I would only make a couple of points here before gracefully bowing out. I'm armchair reacting and am by no means a legal scholar here.

(1) You said "The Constitution does not protect, identify, or dictate 'morality.' It is the very reason we have Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, etc." but I'd argue that is a defined morailty. We are who we are as a nation because we have those freedoms where other countries don't, but that was a moral decision. The Founders determined that it was fair, and just, and right for a people to have those freedoms. To me, that is a moral decision, imposed on the population. A good decision, to be clear, but one based in a sense of fairness and morality nonetheless.

(2) How SCOTUS viewed fundamental rights in 1943 could be described as.....optimistic. Per your quote: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." But history tells us that at the time, married women couldn't buy property without their husband's permission, communities across the country enforced racially restrictive covenants saying non-white people couldn't buy property, Japanese citizens were being put in internment camps because we weren't sure if they were enemies to the country, and the list goes on. These things all ultimately depended on the outcomes of elections and elected officials.

I would argue the tough questions are always through the lens of morality...some was written 250 years ago (like the Declaration of Independence), some 50 (like the Voting Rights Act). These are American Values. The question is "whose morality carries the day?" The only issue with relying on the framer's morality is that we know it doesn't comport with today's standards. That's a notable issue. If we know their morality was inconsistent with ours, and they created these rights based on their sense of what's right and wrong, why not reconsider what the right should entail?

All that said, even by today's morals and standards (and especially today's practicalities), I don't know what Newsom and Co. actually think will happen by making ammo harder to get in CA. They have to know that anyone who wants it can just drive a couple hours in any direction and get it (along with threaded barrels, suppressors, and all kinds of effects). All it does it make it harder for us to protect ourselves from those who mean us harm, so I'm glad we have the legal experts to make best use of the system to vindicate our rights.
Reply With Quote
  #3170  
Old 02-08-2024, 10:00 PM
robertkjjj's Avatar
robertkjjj robertkjjj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 900
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodykid View Post
Another update. I placed an order to Botach on 2/1. Got an email from them on 2/4 that it was shipped. Looked at UPS tracking they supplied and said label created waiting for product. Has been saying that all week until this afternoon. Now it says, "shipment cancelled". Still no word from Botach.

Kinda like hearing about a car accident on TV then finding out from the same TV station that your kid was killed in the accident and not from the hospital or the police.

Oh well. At least Brownells came through.

Joe
..........................
I literally despise Botach. Back in March 2019 Freedom week, I was in a rush to find availability, and ordered $200 worth of stuff from these guys . BIG mistake. They jerked my chain for a week, slowly canceling one item at a time from my order, until there was nothing left on it. All that time wasting time I could have spent finding the stuff elsewhere. Botach can totally ESAD AFAIK. Badly run companies like that deserve to go out of business.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member. Hunter & Target Shooter.
San Diego County.
Passionate supporter of RTKBA.
Supporter of conceal and open-carry.[/SIZE]
"It's called the Bill Of Rights. Not the Bill of Needs."[/SIZE]
Reply With Quote
  #3171  
Old 02-08-2024, 11:20 PM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 3,412
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Maybe so, maybe not. Regardless, the purchase establishes that you obtained the ammunition out-of-state. The next hurdle is importation. If they facilitate shipping after the stay, they might be in jeopardy of abetting the importation. That would be a crime and the vendors might not want to have to deal with that.

Why is that different from the Freedom Week stay? That stay specifically protected any person or business entities who manufactured, imported, sold or bought (LCMs) between the entry of the March 29 judgement to 5 p.m. on April 5.

For a slightly different angle on this. If you ordered and paid for ammo from one of the ammo suppliers in California. If they shipped the order after the stay, they were not importing the ammo, because it was already in California.
__________________

DILLIGAF
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
"Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
"The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"
Reply With Quote
  #3172  
Old 02-09-2024, 3:30 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieDoo View Post
...but I'd argue that is a defined morailty...
As I said, the presumption was a morality consistent with the intent already existed. If you want to call that a 'defined morality' or an 'universal morality,' okay. But, as I also observed, changes to that morality were expected and that is why allowance was made for changes to the Constitution. The problem is that Living Constitutionalists don't want to allow We the People to make those changes.

This is where one gets into trouble in referencing 'morality.' The Founders left it up to the individual. Others wanted to leave it to the State or Society or the Collective. In a sense, its the inherent 'tension' that is the Constitution in that authority is found in both the individual and the 'collective' vis a vis social and government actions. In actuality, it has to for a Constitution to actually be of any relevance. But, the Founders were specific to leave it to the individual in terms of where the balance of power is supposed to lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieDoo
...But history tells us that at the time, married women couldn't buy property without their husband's permission, communities across the country enforced racially restrictive covenants saying non-white people couldn't buy property, Japanese citizens were being put in internment camps because we weren't sure if they were enemies to the country, and the list goes on. These things all ultimately depended on the outcomes of elections and elected officials...
There's no question that the 'collective' (society) dictates a certain amount of compromise. Simply no way exists to form a group without it. But, does the compromise represent a 'dictated morality' or is it more closely related to practical functionality than morality?

A society is defined as a group of people living in an ordered community. This is where the 'tension' stems from... 'ordered.' If you want to argue that one man's order is another man's chaos, then you're not entirely wrong; but, are we speaking of a sense of 'right and wrong' for the individual or the group or both?

Freedom of religion is a good example. How does SCOTUS define 'religion?' At its core, the functional aspect is tied to something which goes beyond the individual; i.e., God or whatever is equitable to God as believed in by the individual. In a way, it is an 'answer' to the issue of diversity in that the 'group' can believe in a wide array of different 'moral absolutes,' but still 'share' certain, basic aspects. For instance, one does not survive, either as an individual or as a group, if one allows for 'indiscriminate' killing to occur. But, therein lies the gist of the 'tension.' It's not that, morally, killing is 'wrong,' period. It's when and/or why the killing happens which creates the level of 'tension' within a society and for the individual.

That is the gist of what I'm getting at. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, doesn't so much dictate a sense of morality. It presumes a functional sharing of what is necessary for the group to exist, but leaves an unique sense of right and wrong to the individual. Where the 'tension' comes from is when that individual sense conflicts with the shared aspects the group must have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieDoo
I would argue the tough questions are always through the lens of morality...some was written 250 years ago (like the Declaration of Independence), some 50 (like the Voting Rights Act). These are American Values. The question is "whose morality carries the day?" The only issue with relying on the framer's morality is that we know it doesn't comport with today's standards. That's a notable issue. If we know their morality was inconsistent with ours, and they created these rights based on their sense of what's right and wrong, why not reconsider what the right should entail?
Be careful. Is it a conflict related to morality or to functionality as a society? Are they "American" values or are they "universal" values mankind must have to exist as a species found within the context of a society which is supposed to favor the individual over the group? Are the overarching values of the Founders really that different than today's in terms of what they were trying to set out or are the questions being raised more a matter of what is prioritized - the individual or the group? Is such prioritization a 'moral' issue or one of how the group will effectively function as a group vs. a nonfunctioning collection of individuals doing what 'feels right' to them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieDoo
All that said, even by today's morals and standards (and especially today's practicalities), I don't know what Newsom and Co. actually think will happen by making ammo harder to get in CA. They have to know that anyone who wants it can just drive a couple hours in any direction and get it (along with threaded barrels, suppressors, and all kinds of effects). All it does it make it harder for us to protect ourselves from those who mean us harm, so I'm glad we have the legal experts to make best use of the system to vindicate our rights.
You just touched on it. For instance, suppressors are not all that 'easy' to get, even in a free state. It is a comparative standard. In 42 states, it is legal to own a suppressor, but it still must be registered, a tax stamp is involved, etc. In the past, it used to take up to 15 months, in some cases, to complete the process. Now, it is quicker than before in most or, at least, many cases. But, it's still a process, even where it is legal to possess one.

That process is the 'shared' morality. The 8 states (and D.C.) which do not allow possession - California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia - are at one end of the scale and the rest, which do allow possession, are part of a spectrum arrayed on the scale. Likewise, their legal use varies among the states which allow possession. Such, ostensibly, represents the 'shared' morality within a given state.

It's similar with the ammunition. What is being dictated by Government is that individuals must defer to the collective in terms of who has 'permission' to obtain ammunition. The problem is that the functionality of the law itself does not actually reflect that. Instead, it is more about the antithesis of why the 2nd Amendment exists and the basis of the balance of power being with the individual; i.e., it is the Government, the collective, dictating to the individual in a coercive manner.

Is that a 'moral' issue or is it inconsistent with how the relationship between the individual and society (represented by the Government) is supposed to exist and function on a practical level vis a vis the Constitution?

Does it leave it to individuals to decide, on balance, what the 'morality' of gun ownership and use is or does it dictate a sense of 'morality' which reflects a societal consensus on that score to individuals? Which way is it supposed to work? Which way does it work on a functional basis?

So, if you wish to use 'morality' based on the definition of 'conforming to a standard of behavior,' then you have to address what level you are referencing. Is it a standard of behavior for the individual or a standard of behavior when acting within the group? This is the actual basis of the... discord... which now exists. It's not about 'morality' in terms of the individual. It's about 'morality' in the broadest sense of the term in the context of what is considered right and wrong behaviors by individuals insofar as a functional society.

This is what Adams was getting at. His 'moral and religious people' was indicating a shared sense of base behaviors upon which a society could then function. If those base behaviors are not shared, then the society ceases to be functional. This was the actual 'threat' being perceived by the push for more emphasis on the individual and the one we perceive with more power being taken by Government. Without a 'proper balance,' you go too far toward chaos or subservience when it comes to the functionality of an 'ordered' society.

In that sense, you're not speaking so much about 'morality' as you are a standard of functionality; i.e., how a society is 'ordered.'
Reply With Quote
  #3173  
Old 02-09-2024, 8:11 AM
Dooligan's Avatar
Dooligan Dooligan is offline
TheAyatollahofRocknRolla!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East Bay
Posts: 7,459
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redhead View Post
I ordered my ammunition from Ammunition Depot precisely because they dedicated time and resources. Got my order yesterday.
Same story here
__________________
Quote:
"Let criminals out. Let illegals in. Let boys in the girls bathrooms. Condemn police officers. Abort babies. Pervert the children. Condemn Christians. Accept barbarity in the name of Islam. Overtax the hard working people. Coddle the lazy. That's the liberal way." -from a posting on "Yahoo"
Reply With Quote
  #3174  
Old 02-09-2024, 8:35 AM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: OC
Posts: 6,337
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Is this thread still about case updates? (No pun intended)
__________________
Freedom isn't free...



iTrader
Reply With Quote
  #3175  
Old 02-09-2024, 8:43 AM
FourT6and2's Avatar
FourT6and2 FourT6and2 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,825
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Ordered ammo from Vizards on 2/5, 11am. Shipped on 2/6, 7pm. Out for delivery today.

Ordered ammo from GMan Sporting Arms at same time. Hasn't shipped yet. But, I got an email from them saying my order is confirmed, processed, and will ship. Confirmed on the 7th. The problem is they drop ship from different warehouses. And one of them no longer ships to CA. So they are having the ammo sent directly to them, they will re-pack and then ship to me.
Reply With Quote
  #3176  
Old 02-09-2024, 11:00 AM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,061
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherSharp View Post
RE:Outdoor Limited
i can confirm that an order my buddy made at 7pm on Monday 2/5 was confirmed and has shipped. B grade may be unfair.
I have updated the Outdoor Limited entry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FourT6and2 View Post
Ordered ammo from Vizards on 2/5, 11am. Shipped on 2/6, 7pm. Out for delivery today.

Ordered ammo from GMan Sporting Arms at same time. Hasn't shipped yet. But, I got an email from them saying my order is confirmed, processed, and will ship. Confirmed on the 7th. The problem is they drop ship from different warehouses. And one of them no longer ships to CA. So they are having the ammo sent directly to them, they will re-pack and then ship to me.
Thanks. I will incorporate this information into my list.
Reply With Quote
  #3177  
Old 02-09-2024, 12:50 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC View Post
Is this thread still about case updates? (No pun intended)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FNGGlock View Post
Guess it is taking a detour.

In regards to case updates, no news. CRPA youtube channel Chuck stated they are waiting for a Merit panel to be assigned, but this may take a while as leading judge is Obama appointee, so no urgency from judge.
While the wheels of Justice can move swiftly, as with the LaPierre trial, sometimes there is a rest stop or a layover in terms of the proceedings or news or both. Either that or we have reached...

Reply With Quote
  #3178  
Old 02-09-2024, 2:35 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,828
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FNGGlock View Post
Guess it is taking a detour.

In regards to case updates, no news. CRPA youtube channel Chuck stated they are waiting for a Merit panel to be assigned, but this may take a while as leading judge is Obama appointee, so no urgency from judge.
Except for assignment to the motions panel, to which judges are assigned on a rotating basis, appointment to a merits panel is supposed to be random. In the federal trial courts at least, the function of selecting the judge assigned to a case is performed by the Clerk. This prevents accusations that the panel was "stacked" for political (or other) purposes.
Reply With Quote
  #3179  
Old 02-09-2024, 3:20 PM
shooter556's Avatar
shooter556 shooter556 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 945
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

I wish we could get an estimate as to how many order shipments were sent to CA. Could it have hit 7 digits?
Reply With Quote
  #3180  
Old 02-09-2024, 4:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,061
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter556 View Post
I wish we could get an estimate as to how many order shipments were sent to CA. Could it have hit 7 digits?
I bet the quantity vastly exceeded 1 million rounds.
Reply With Quote
  #3181  
Old 02-09-2024, 4:11 PM
Randall_G Randall_G is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vista, Ca
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not too hard to get there.

If 1000 Californians each ordered 1000 rounds = 1,000,000.

Or 500 Californians each ordered 2000 rounds = 1,000,000.

Etc.
Reply With Quote
  #3182  
Old 02-09-2024, 4:55 PM
shooter556's Avatar
shooter556 shooter556 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 945
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
I bet the quantity vastly exceeded 1 million rounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall_G View Post
Not too hard to get there.

If 1000 Californians each ordered 1000 rounds = 1,000,000.

Or 500 Californians each ordered 2000 rounds = 1,000,000.

Etc.
Not the round count, but the amount of orders that were shipped to CA.

I know for sure the amount of round count was 7 digits. No doubt about that.

I hope 1M+ Californians participated!

Last edited by shooter556; 02-09-2024 at 5:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3183  
Old 02-09-2024, 5:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,061
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall_G View Post
Not too hard to get there.

If 1000 Californians each ordered 1000 rounds = 1,000,000.

Or 500 Californians each ordered 2000 rounds = 1,000,000.

Etc.
I believe the ultimate number could have easily exceeded 50 million.

50,000 people out of a total population of 39 million = 0.13% of the population of California
50,000 people ordering 1,000 rounds each = 50 million rounds of ammunition
Reply With Quote
  #3184  
Old 02-10-2024, 12:43 AM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 718
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
Thank you for your work at CRPA.
I appreciate the kind words but no need to thank me. I am just doing my job. Thank you for giving credit where it is due.
Reply With Quote
  #3185  
Old 02-10-2024, 10:35 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I hope Rhode went on a major ammo shopping spree as I did. Buy enough ammo to get you through to the end of the case litigation is my theory. 10 to 15 years worth of ammo and shop out of state and in person.
Reply With Quote
  #3186  
Old 02-11-2024, 5:25 AM
db556762 db556762 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 118
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I did close to 11,000 rds. So I hope there were many more like me to bump up the average.
Reply With Quote
  #3187  
Old 02-11-2024, 6:00 AM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,061
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by db556762 View Post
I did close to 11,000 rds. So I hope there were many more like me to bump up the average.


You really utilized Freedom Week 2024 to the max.

Reply With Quote
  #3188  
Old 02-11-2024, 8:12 AM
IronsightsRifleman's Avatar
IronsightsRifleman IronsightsRifleman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 574
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieDoo View Post
To some degree, we all pick and choose when we defer to the old ways and when we make allowances to reflect modern society. For example, at the time the First Amendment was codified, there were laws restricting when, how, and how many black people could assemble without white supervision...but it wasn't seen as a conflict because the Bill of Rights didn't apply to them. That's not the case now. Our ideas of "rights," "citizens," and even "people" have changed since founding, so it would be intellectually dishonest to follow the historical analogue test without recognition of the change.
Taking it one step further, I'd say it's fair to question whether the 2nd amendment (and 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th) would even exist if it meant that that at the time it was written, black people, native people, and women would enjoy their protections.
SCOTUS, in both Heller and Bruen, didn't use the 2nd Amendment alone, they joined it with the 14th and made their historical analog tests apply at the two periods those relevant Amendment were codified. SCOTUS very clearly establishes that laws mean what the meant at the time they were adopted. It's not that our "ideas" changed, it's that our Constitution was formally amended, by a vote of 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the States. To say that, "We pick and choose when we defer to the old ways and when we make allowances to reflect modern society," is to blatently contradict the very principle SCOTUS has enshrined.
Reply With Quote
  #3189  
Old 02-11-2024, 9:19 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I spent well, over $15,000.00 @ various stores in Arizona and Nevada. I have yet to tally my totals but we'll over 50,000 rounds.
Reply With Quote
  #3190  
Old 02-11-2024, 2:20 PM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 3,412
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronsightsRifleman View Post
SCOTUS, in both Heller and Bruen, didn't use the 2nd Amendment alone, they joined it with the 14th and made their historical analog tests apply at the two periods those relevant Amendment were codified. SCOTUS very clearly establishes that laws mean what the meant at the time they were adopted. It's not that our "ideas" changed, it's that our Constitution was formally amended, by a vote of 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the States. To say that, "We pick and choose when we defer to the old ways and when we make allowances to reflect modern society," is to blatently contradict the very principle SCOTUS has enshrined.

As Mark W Smith has explained many times. You can not have two meanings of the 2nd Amendment.
IE 1791 for the Feds and 1865 for the States. The 1865 meaning can only confirm the 1791, not change it.
__________________

DILLIGAF
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
"Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
"The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"
Reply With Quote
  #3191  
Old 02-11-2024, 3:08 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,044
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by db556762 View Post
I did close to 11,000 rds. So I hope there were many more like me to bump up the average.
Very well done.
My hope is that those 11K of freedom seeds equates to 11K points of heartache, grief, despair, anguish, and stress on the legislature that hates all gun owners.
You did very well, keep it up!
Reply With Quote
  #3192  
Old 02-11-2024, 4:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,061
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkwater34 View Post
I spent well, over $15,000.00 @ various stores in Arizona and Nevada. I have yet to tally my totals but we'll over 50,000 rounds.
Didn't you move to Arizona? Why would you have spent $15,000 on ammunition recently?
Reply With Quote
  #3193  
Old 02-11-2024, 7:31 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 19,380
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
Very well done.
My hope is that those 11K of freedom seeds equates to 11K points of heartache, grief, despair, anguish, and stress on the legislature that hates all gun owners.
You did very well, keep it up!
Even ordering 100 rounds will piss them off. Because the government didn't approve it. That alone is worth it.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #3194  
Old 02-11-2024, 8:17 PM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No I had to move back to California last month due to family matters. The kids started a homestead near Atascadero and needed some help, hopefully this is only temporary. I still have my place in Ash Fork and hope to be able to move back there before the year is out. But until then I will be here until the kids get their homestead up and running. The ammo was not for me it was for my kids.
Reply With Quote
  #3195  
Old 02-11-2024, 9:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,061
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkwater34 View Post
No I had to move back to California last month due to family matters. The kids started a homestead near Atascadero and needed some help, hopefully this is only temporary. I still have my place in Ash Fork and hope to be able to move back there before the year is out. But until then I will be here until the kids get their homestead up and running. The ammo was not for me it was for my kids.
I see. Best of luck to your children and their homestead, and may you return to a free state soon.
Reply With Quote
  #3196  
Old 02-11-2024, 9:04 PM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks hopefully soon very soon.
Reply With Quote
  #3197  
Old 02-11-2024, 10:15 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,044
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkwater34 View Post
No I had to move back to California last month due to family matters. The kids started a homestead near Atascadero and needed some help, hopefully this is only temporary. I still have my place in Ash Fork and hope to be able to move back there before the year is out. But until then I will be here until the kids get their homestead up and running. The ammo was not for me it was for my kids.
Ah, Ash Fork. Drive by it on our way back from school in Paulden several times per year, if we do not take 89 south towards I-10. I have considered acquiring property off HWY 89 adjacent to USFS lands for a nice shooting range/ranch, but the complex water issues at parcels I have researched have been an obstacle.
I am guessing that when you need to get to a decent sized town, you likely go to Flagstaff, Kingman, or Prescott?
Reply With Quote
  #3198  
Old 02-12-2024, 5:18 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When I am over there I mainly shop in Kingman at the Tractor Store, Safeway, Smiths and WalMart on Stocton Hill, Cal Ranch, Harbor Freight on Andy Devine and Ammo King a new store over on Airway Avenue. only go to Flag Staff when visiting the Grand Canyon maybe Prescott once in a while but mainly Kingman as I would visit Las Vegas and Laughlin more than one should but I also have friends in Kingman, Fort Mohave, and Bullhead. But now stuck back in Sewerfornia hopefully not to much longer lol.
Reply With Quote
  #3199  
Old 02-12-2024, 11:03 AM
Packy14's Avatar
Packy14 Packy14 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: socal
Posts: 5,297
iTrader: 141 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by db556762 View Post
I did close to 11,000 rds. So I hope there were many more like me to bump up the average.
13000 total for me
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member

1A-2A = -1A
Reply With Quote
  #3200  
Old 02-12-2024, 11:59 AM
Uranium238's Avatar
Uranium238 Uranium238 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

One of my orders was lost/stolen at a courier. Been waiting 5 days, and now the soop confirmed.
__________________
*BRRRT* More.... B***h less...
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 11:26 PM.




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