Miller v. Bonta, SDCA - "assault weapons"

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by kcstott

"Assault weapon" started in 1989

By name not feature, plus I’m referring to about the timeline the antis pushed their agenda

[kcstott]

Originally Posted by taperxz

By name not feature, plus I’m referring to about the timeline the antis pushed their agenda

the Anti's were pushing there agenda in 1985 which lead to the import ban in 1986 along with the NFA limits. This crap has been going on for a very long time.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by kcstott

"Assault weapon" started in 1989

I have old gun magazines predating Roberti-Roos that use the term. Seems like it came from the gun industry and culture, not legislators, originally.

[Roswell Saucer]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

I have old gun magazines predating Roberti-Roos that use the term. Seems like it came from the gun industry and culture, not legislators, originally.

I think it was Josh Sugarmann (VPC) that brought the term in common use for it's hyperbolic political value.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by kcstott

Let me ask you, Did you mail your standard capacity mags back to where you got them from and asked them to only return them when the law is struck down??

Sorry it don't work that way. Once the ruling is issued it's game on, regardless of appeal status, all that's needed is a moment of time between the ruling and a new stay pending appeal. I don't believe Benitez is going to issue a new stay. I believe it's to be TRO and PI

This was the same argument that was made with same sex marriage licenses that were issued in clear contravention of State law at the time.

Since they were issued, they couldn't be taken away.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by TheNinja

Seems to sum it up nicely IMO. If they can't make their laws fit into 2A, they'll just deny that their laws have anything to do with 2A.

Like if the constitution says states must allow you to wear hats into a building.....the state just calls the hat a "lid" and says the constitution doesn't protect your right to wear a lid.

And then also claims the law doesn't apply to your specific hat b/c your lid has a pistol grip and your lid isn't on the official list for hats..

Welcome to the new version of the 2-step with new words and definitions.

[JiuJitsu]

This is how they will attempt to fight the 2nd amendment and gun rights going forward:

"The 2nd amendment doesn't protect [insert anything gun-related here] because [insert ridiculous, obviously BS argument here]."

And/or...

Take a completely obscure or totally unrelated non-firearm law and improperly contort it into "history" to back up their 2A infringements. "They banned throwing dog sh1t in Kentucky in 1827...so banning this gun thing is constitutional."

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

This is how they will attempt to fight the 2nd amendment and gun rights going forward:

"The 2nd amendment doesn't protect [insert anything gun-related here] because [insert ridiculous, obviously BS argument here]."

And/or...

Take a completely obscure or totally unrelated non-firearm law and improperly contort it into "history" to back up their 2A infringements. "They banned throwing dog sh1t in Kentucky in 1827...so banning this gun thing is constitutional."

I agree this is what they will do , and what they did in this case in the latest briefings.

I just don't see even the liberal judges buying this. I think there has to be some small thing in history which is similar, otherwise I think it's like default, they lose.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

It would seem that a Sheriff is locally elected since only the population of a specific county is polled to elect that county's sheriff.

I would only consider positions that all the citizens of the state vote on like Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer and Attorney General to be state elected positions.

So the lesson learned here is that you sue the sheriff in federal court, not in ca state courts.

Exactly. However note that legislators are also immune although not elected by a state-wide vote. The analysis has instead focused on the nature of the activities involved. District Attorneys are clearly acting on behalf of the State (says so on all of the criminal cases filed) even though locally elected. State courts using a similar analysis have concluded that the Sheriff is not subject to control by the County Board of Supes, that other than $, he has discretion as to how he spends funding, and that he enforces state law. The District Courts aren't buying it. I assume (without looking it up) that the California Supreme Court has not weighed in, but even if it held that sheriffs are state actors, I am not sure that the federal courts would be bound because it is a question of federal law, not state law. (I have never bothered to check since the answer was already known in all of the federal 1983 cases I worked on for the defendants.)

[kuug]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

This is how they will attempt to fight the 2nd amendment and gun rights going forward:

"The 2nd amendment doesn't protect [insert anything gun-related here] because [insert ridiculous, obviously BS argument here]."

And/or...

Take a completely obscure or totally unrelated non-firearm law and improperly contort it into "history" to back up their 2A infringements. "They banned throwing dog sh1t in Kentucky in 1827...so banning this gun thing is constitutional."

Yeah they will try this, it's the argument they're making in Rhode v Bonta, the ammo regulation lawsuit. Rather than admit that buying ammunition is activity covered by the second amendment, Bonta is trying to argue that the question is narrowed to "Is buying ammo without a background check protected by the 2A." It's a sneaky, underhanded tactic but it's the best move they've got. The ammo regulations are a clear burden and that burden is already redundant by the background checks on the guns Californians buy. They touted the ammo regulations as "innovative" and "first of it's kind" so it will absolutely fail the historical analog portion of the analysis. California and the 9th are going to do all they can to make sure as many regulations like AWB are not labeled as protected by the 2nd amendment, because the 2nd portion of the test is a death sentence for almost all big ticket gun control regulations.

We're also seeing them test the limits of the historical analogue prong of the Heller analysis. The judge in the San Jose gun insurance lawsuit claimed, with a generous reading, that 1800 Surety Laws were similar enough to the current gun insurance that the PI should have been denied. Surety laws only applied to individuals accused of a violent crime, where they payed a fee to keep their arms.

The 9th is not going to give up it's bull****, so I hope the SCOTUS justices haven't lost their appetite for gun cases because they must be proactive in order to stop these games.