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
  #3881  
Old 09-09-2021, 8:04 AM
morthrane morthrane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 877
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hylander View Post
Keep waiting,
It has already been over 2 years.
This is never going anywhere.
In a general sense, I think you missed a zero on the end of that number.
Reply With Quote
  #3882  
Old 09-11-2021, 11:37 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,077
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hylander View Post
Keep waiting,

It has already been over 2 years.

This is never going anywhere.
Well, at least a very similar case from NJ may be picked up by SCOTUS.. should know Sep 27th... the 9th can play the slow roll game but other circuits with cases are heading to the big bench..
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #3883  
Old 09-12-2021, 12:08 PM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,437
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
Well, at least a very similar case from NJ may be picked up by SCOTUS.. should know Sep 27th... the 9th can play the slow roll game but other circuits with cases are heading to the big bench..
I well remember when SCOTUS dumped ten cases in the span of a week, and we were left holding our balls while standing naked on the front steps. Let us hope that dose not happen again. If it does, ALL hope with any court is totally meaningless.
Reply With Quote
  #3884  
Old 09-12-2021, 12:20 PM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,031
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
I well remember when SCOTUS dumped ten cases in the span of a week, and we were left holding our balls while standing naked on the front steps. Let us hope that dose not happen again. If it does, ALL hope with any court is totally meaningless.
You know WHY that happened, RIGHT?

It was because they knew they had the 4 votes needed to grant cert, but with the turncoat Robert's playing "switch", couldn't count on the 5 votes needed to win a clear and decisive originalist victory.

Remember, barring very exceptional circumstances, SCOTUS nearly never reverses itself. That means a badly decided 2A case would hobble the struggle for gun rights for decades... look at the gap between Miller and Heller. Sixty nine years... seven decades. We can't afford a rushed case, we need the RIGHT case and no do-overs, if you want to see a meaningful 2A decision in our lifetime. They made the right call, because now the ball is in our court. Let's hope they get a whack at the current batch before the composition of the court changes.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.

Last edited by bruss01; 09-12-2021 at 12:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3885  
Old 09-12-2021, 12:59 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 287
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
You know WHY that happened, RIGHT?

It was because they knew they had the 4 votes needed to grant cert, but with the turncoat Robert's playing "switch", couldn't count on the 5 votes needed to win a clear and decisive originalist victory.

Remember, barring very exceptional circumstances, SCOTUS nearly never reverses itself. That means a badly decided 2A case would hobble the struggle for gun rights for decades... look at the gap between Miller and Heller. Sixty nine years... seven decades. We can't afford a rushed case, we need the RIGHT case and no do-overs, if you want to see a meaningful 2A decision in our lifetime. They made the right call, because now the ball is in our court. Let's hope they get a whack at the current batch before the composition of the court changes.
True, the four conservatives wouldn’t grant cert with Roberts becoming ‘unreliable’ on 2A cases. I am praying that the current five conservative justices (not counting Roberts) have EXCELLENT security around them with the coming cases on the 2A and Roe v Wade this year. Democrats may make a lot of noise about pushing for Breyer’s retirement, but that doesn’t really move the ball for them. All it would take to throw our chances for a definitive 2A ruling out the window is some liberal crazy deciding they could find another means of handing Biden new vacancies to fill, like that guy that tried to shoot up Republicans at that baseball field. Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer would all say the obligatory words of mourning in public, but in private they’d be high-fiving each other.
Reply With Quote
  #3886  
Old 09-12-2021, 6:10 PM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,437
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think Biden & Pelosi might even arrange it….
Reply With Quote
  #3887  
Old 09-19-2021, 3:41 PM
johnireland johnireland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 242
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
You know WHY that happened, RIGHT?

It was because they knew they had the 4 votes needed to grant cert, but with the turncoat Robert's playing "switch", couldn't count on the 5 votes needed to win a clear and decisive originalist victory.

Remember, barring very exceptional circumstances, SCOTUS nearly never reverses itself. That means a badly decided 2A case would hobble the struggle for gun rights for decades... look at the gap between Miller and Heller. Sixty nine years... seven decades. We can't afford a rushed case, we need the RIGHT case and no do-overs, if you want to see a meaningful 2A decision in our lifetime. They made the right call, because now the ball is in our court. Let's hope they get a whack at the current batch before the composition of the court changes.
John Roberts has signed the death certificate for the Constitution of the United States.
Reply With Quote
  #3888  
Old 09-30-2021, 11:44 AM
Bolt_Action Bolt_Action is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 499
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
Well, at least a very similar case from NJ may be picked up by SCOTUS.. should know Sep 27th... the 9th can play the slow roll game but other circuits with cases are heading to the big bench..
Is there any expectation on when we will hear an update on the status of the NJ case?
Reply With Quote
  #3889  
Old 09-30-2021, 12:46 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 287
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was speaking to the husband of a close family member, who is a LEO, about the status of this case, and the current status quo of still being able to possess a high capacity mag even though purchase or importing is still a no go. He contradicted me on that, saying that anytime he encounters someone with a high cap mag, he writes them up and confiscates it. His attitude was “you have to explicitly prove to me you acquired it pre-ban or during freedom week, or I’m taking it”. Now, this was family, so I remained polite … but I told him that’s not the current status of the law or this case. And I reminded him that as a law enforcement officer, the ‘burden of proof’ that there has been a violation of law was on him. If possession is currently legal, then mere possession doesn’t itself implicate a reasonable suspicion that someone came into that possession unlawfully. I also told him that I frequently carry a pre-ban G17 mag as my backup mag for my CCW G26 … and that given the current state of things that possession, including carrying, is perfectly legal. The outcome of this enbanc may change that, but for now, today, its legal to possess and nothing in the law lays out a requirement that I carry around any physical proof of how I came into that possession. So I asked what would he do if he encountered me? Well, he wouldn’t hassle me, I’m family.

At least I think I’m right on the current state of things … or am I wrong about possession?
Reply With Quote
  #3890  
Old 09-30-2021, 1:14 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,692
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
I was speaking to the husband of a close family member, who is a LEO, about the status of this case, and the current status quo of still being able to possess a high capacity mag even though purchase or importing is still a no go. He contradicted me on that, saying that anytime he encounters someone with a high cap mag, he writes them up and confiscates it. His attitude was “you have to explicitly prove to me you acquired it pre-ban or during freedom week, or I’m taking it”. Now, this was family, so I remained polite … but I told him that’s not the current status of the law or this case. And I reminded him that as a law enforcement officer, the ‘burden of proof’ that there has been a violation of law was on him. If possession is currently legal, then mere possession doesn’t itself implicate a reasonable suspicion that someone came into that possession unlawfully. I also told him that I frequently carry a pre-ban G17 mag as my backup mag for my CCW G26 … and that given the current state of things that possession, including carrying, is perfectly legal. The outcome of this enbanc may change that, but for now, today, its legal to possess and nothing in the law lays out a requirement that I carry around any physical proof of how I came into that possession. So I asked what would he do if he encountered me? Well, he wouldn’t hassle me, I’m family.

At least I think I’m right on the current state of things … or am I wrong about possession?
I'd respectfully suggest that you're mistaken here.

The simple possession of a large-capacity magazine remains illegal, even if it was acquired during "Freedom Week." But that's pretty much only a semantic distinction. The Federal Court has issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the possession clause of PC 32310. But the federal court action did nothing to remove that statute from the books. All it did was prohibit enforcement. The law still remains in place. It's just kinda useless at the moment.

At the same time, the federal court did nothing to prohibit enforcement of the importation clause of PC 32310, nor did it do anything to restrict enforcement of the nuisance statute.

The "Burden of Proof" for the importation clause of PC 32310 is only that you imported a large-capacity magazine into the state, and that no statutory exemption applied. The nuisance statute is non-criminal. As a civil law issue, the burden there is even less. The officer only has to show that you possessed the nuisance object. Judge Benitez' order did not change any of California's laws.

But it's also very important to apply the spirit of the law here. And this is where I'm troubled by the arguments made by your LEO family member. The issue of whether PC 32310 is a constitutional issue is currently before the federal court, and no final determination has been made. That calls for deference to be had to the federal court order, and that, IMHO, calls for non-enforcement until the issue is finally resolved.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #3891  
Old 09-30-2021, 2:11 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 51,674
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
I was speaking to the husband of a close family member, who is a LEO, about the status of this case, and the current status quo of still being able to possess a high capacity mag even though purchase or importing is still a no go. He contradicted me on that, saying that anytime he encounters someone with a high cap mag, he writes them up and confiscates it. His attitude was “you have to explicitly prove to me you acquired it pre-ban or during freedom week, or I’m taking it”.
So he believes people are guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty like the constitution states.

You should tell him that because he has a penis, that he's a rapist until he proves he's not.
It's the exact same logic he is applying.
__________________
Randall Rausch

AR work: www.ar15barrels.com
Bolt actions: www.700barrels.com
Foreign Semi Autos: www.akbarrels.com
Barrel, sight and trigger work on most pistols and shotguns.
Most work performed while-you-wait, evening and saturday appointments available.
Reply With Quote
  #3892  
Old 09-30-2021, 2:27 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beyond the reach...
Posts: 3,759
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
So he believes people are guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty like the constitution states.

You should tell him that because he has a penis, that he's a rapist until he proves he's not.
It's the exact same logic he is applying.
The problem is that he is a rapist... he's raping the public because he is drunk on power. You can bet his (guilty until proven innocent) attitude doesn't only apply to LCMs.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #3893  
Old 09-30-2021, 3:10 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,405
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Also the fact that the LEO insists on using the term "high cap" tells me all I need to know about both his legal acumen and his position about "civilian[sic]" firearm ownership. He is one of those who likely believes "civilians[sic]" are not to be trusted with firearms, and that police should always have superior firepower, enforced by the law. He deserves nothing but derision and contempt, family or no.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #3894  
Old 09-30-2021, 4:03 PM
ARFrog's Avatar
ARFrog ARFrog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Northern Calif - East Bay area
Posts: 861
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
So he believes people are guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty like the constitution states.

You should tell him that because he has a penis, that he's a rapist until he proves he's not.
It's the exact same logic he is applying.
Assumes facts not in evidence. He could be a "man with a cervix."

I do agree with the logic analogy.
__________________


ARFrog
Reply With Quote
  #3895  
Old 09-30-2021, 4:50 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 51,674
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARFrog View Post
He could be a "man with a cervix."
From behavior, this is quite possible.
Reply With Quote
  #3896  
Old 09-30-2021, 6:11 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,498
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The nuisance statute is non-criminal. As a civil law issue, the burden there is even less.

The officer only has to show that you possessed the nuisance object.
BOLDED ..... Rather like "Civil Asset Forfeiture". In plain speak. Just another, "LICENSE TO STEAL".

UNDERLINED ..... Same as your money, car, house, or anything else of value, that a bent cop, or agency "suspects". They can get away with.
Reply With Quote
  #3897  
Old 10-01-2021, 8:14 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,699
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
I was speaking to the husband of a close family member, who is a LEO, about the status of this case, and the current status quo of still being able to possess a high capacity mag even though purchase or importing is still a no go. He contradicted me on that, saying that anytime he encounters someone with a high cap mag, he writes them up and confiscates it. His attitude was “you have to explicitly prove to me you acquired it pre-ban or during freedom week, or I’m taking it”. Now, this was family, so I remained polite … but I told him that’s not the current status of the law or this case. And I reminded him that as a law enforcement officer, the ‘burden of proof’ that there has been a violation of law was on him. If possession is currently legal, then mere possession doesn’t itself implicate a reasonable suspicion that someone came into that possession unlawfully. I also told him that I frequently carry a pre-ban G17 mag as my backup mag for my CCW G26 … and that given the current state of things that possession, including carrying, is perfectly legal. The outcome of this enbanc may change that, but for now, today, its legal to possess and nothing in the law lays out a requirement that I carry around any physical proof of how I came into that possession. So I asked what would he do if he encountered me? Well, he wouldn’t hassle me, I’m family.

At least I think I’m right on the current state of things … or am I wrong about possession?
Think of it this way.

You take your 3 year old kid to the grocery store. A cop sees you and asks if you are the lawful parent of the child. You say yes, but are unable to produce a birth certificate for the child because, well, you're at the grocery store, and there's no requirement that you have to keep that with you at all times. The cop says, "Ok well I'm just going to take your child, then, if you can't give me proof right now. If you can come up with proof later then you can come retrieve the child from the police department, assumed we haven't already re-homed him with another family by that point." Would that cop's behavior be acceptable?

There's this thing called "probable cause". It requires a cop to have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed - simply not being able to find evidence to the contrary does not constitute "probable cause". Simply having a child in your presence is not probable cause that you are a kidnapper. Simply having a LCM is not probable cause that you obtained it illegally. A child shouting "Help, I've been kidnapped!" is probable cause, as is a magazine that says, "This magazine was purchased illegally" on the side. However, absent any evidence to suggest a crime took place, there's no probable cause.

A "nuisance" seizure would be another thing entirely, but your cop family member clearly said that's not the reason they're using for the confiscation.
__________________
AW Reg. will be reopened Jan. '22 to those who weren't able to register by 7/2018. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!

Last edited by CandG; 10-01-2021 at 8:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3898  
Old 10-01-2021, 8:46 PM
chaco chaco is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Covina
Posts: 158
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
Think of it this way.

You take your 3 year old kid to the grocery store. A cop sees you and asks if you are the lawful parent of the child. You say yes, but are unable to produce a birth certificate for the child because, well, you're at the grocery store, and there's no requirement that you have to keep that with you at all times. The cop says, "Ok well I'm just going to take your child, then, if you can't give me proof right now. If you can come up with proof later then you can come retrieve the child from the police department, assumed we haven't already re-homed him with another family by that point." Would that cop's behavior be acceptable?

There's this thing called "probable cause". It requires a cop to have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed - simply not being able to find evidence to the contrary does not constitute "probable cause". Simply having a child in your presence is not probable cause that you are a kidnapper. Simply having a LCM is not probable cause that you obtained it illegally. A child shouting "Help, I've been kidnapped!" is probable cause, as is a magazine that says, "This magazine was purchased illegally" on the side. However, absent any evidence to suggest a crime took place, there's no probable cause.

A "nuisance" seizure would be another thing entirely, but your cop family member clearly said that's not the reason they're using for the confiscation.
Though your argument makes sense. Do you really think thats how things would go when law enforcement comes and "inspects" mag?
Reply With Quote
  #3899  
Old 10-01-2021, 8:54 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,453
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaco View Post
Though your argument makes sense. Do you really think thats how things would go when law enforcement comes and "inspects" mag?
Nothing like having the burden of proof stacked against you. Guilty until proven innocent, and what-not.
Reply With Quote
  #3900  
Old 10-05-2021, 12:01 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,699
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaco View Post
Though your argument makes sense. Do you really think thats how things would go when law enforcement comes and "inspects" mag?
Depends. In my area, LE is extremely unlikely to hassle any non-criminals for LCM's. In the Bay Area and other liberal strongholds, I would expect a lot more hassling and "confiscate now, ask questions later" from LE.

I generally carry LCM's daily with my CCW, without any worries or concerns (admittedly, I have never had any LE contact to test that theory), but if I go to SF I switch to 10 rounders just to be on the safe side.
__________________
AW Reg. will be reopened Jan. '22 to those who weren't able to register by 7/2018. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3901  
Old 10-05-2021, 6:14 PM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
Depends. In my area, LE is extremely unlikely to hassle any non-criminals for LCM's. In the Bay Area and other liberal strongholds, I would expect a lot more hassling and "confiscate now, ask questions later" from LE.

I generally carry LCM's daily with my CCW, without any worries or concerns (admittedly, I have never had any LE contact to test that theory), but if I go to SF I switch to 10 rounders just to be on the safe side.
Not me, there are plenty of more STANDARD capacity mags to replace any STOLEN by gov.
__________________
Who is Sgt. Beezy?
Reply With Quote
  #3902  
Old 10-05-2021, 8:57 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 41,919
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
Not me, there are plenty of more STANDARD capacity mags to replace any STOLEN by gov.
That's right, lots of 7-round mags for 1911s.

"Standard" is not the same as California's silly "large-capacity".
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Consider Samizdat; consider some reading material, such as this and that.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #3903  
Old 10-06-2021, 8:27 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,699
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
Not me, there are plenty of more STANDARD capacity mags to replace any STOLEN by gov.
The way I see it, a loaded LCM is like $40 plus ~$15 in ammo, and there are at least 2 of them on me. So if I can avoid having $110 in property confiscated (and being left disarmed afterwards until I can get back home) by just sacrificing a few rounds of capacity for that day, it's worth it. To me, anyways. But realistically I only visit places where this might be a concern once or twice a year.
__________________
AW Reg. will be reopened Jan. '22 to those who weren't able to register by 7/2018. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3904  
Old 10-06-2021, 11:25 AM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
The way I see it, a loaded LCM is like $40 plus ~$15 in ammo, and there are at least 2 of them on me. So if I can avoid having $110 in property confiscated (and being left disarmed afterwards until I can get back home) by just sacrificing a few rounds of capacity for that day, it's worth it. To me, anyways. But realistically I only visit places where this might be a concern once or twice a year.
YMMV, but I got the older white guy privilege going for me, ain't be stopped by police in at least three decades.
__________________
Who is Sgt. Beezy?
Reply With Quote
  #3905  
Old 10-06-2021, 3:25 PM
Paperchasin's Avatar
Paperchasin Paperchasin is offline
YOU are next!!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,064
iTrader: 442 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
The way I see it, a loaded LCM is like $40 plus ~$15 in ammo, and there are at least 2 of them on me. So if I can avoid having $110 in property confiscated (and being left disarmed afterwards until I can get back home) by just sacrificing a few rounds of capacity for that day, it's worth it. To me, anyways. But realistically I only visit places where this might be a concern once or twice a year.
You also need to consider the non-monetary issue that those standard cap mags are not legally replaceable for us civilians.
Reply With Quote
  #3906  
Old 10-07-2021, 7:12 AM
NorthBay Shooter's Avatar
NorthBay Shooter NorthBay Shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 493
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
The way I see it, a loaded LCM is like $40 plus ~$15 in ammo, and there are at least 2 of them on me. So if I can avoid having $110 in property confiscated (and being left disarmed afterwards until I can get back home) by just sacrificing a few rounds of capacity for that day, it's worth it. To me, anyways. But realistically I only visit places where this might be a concern once or twice a year.
While this might be a true statement, what is the value should you need to use your weapon that day and need those extra 5 to 7 rounds per mag? Perhaps there are a bunch of bad actors you need to engage. Perhaps your aim or circumstance causes a few misses or non-stopping hits. Perhaps you have a malfunction and need to rack out a couple of rounds? I guess in the end it is a personal decision.
Reply With Quote
  #3907  
Old 10-07-2021, 7:15 AM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,437
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
The problem is that he is a rapist... he's raping the public because he is drunk on power. You can bet his (guilty until proven innocent) attitude doesn't only apply to LCMs.
This is a perfect example of a “public servant” who is anything but a public servant. He is a public dispenser of tyranny. He is yet another example of why many gun owners like myself now no longer back LE, and in some cases care not when bad things befall them. His attitude sucks, and he deserves to be fired for whatever minuscule charge that can be found.
Reply With Quote
  #3908  
Old 10-07-2021, 8:39 AM
NRA-Rider NRA-Rider is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthBay Shooter View Post
While this might be a true statement, what is the value should you need to use your weapon that day and need those extra 5 to 7 rounds per mag? Perhaps there are a bunch of bad actors you need to engage. Perhaps your aim or circumstance causes a few misses or non-stopping hits. Perhaps you have a malfunction and need to rack out a couple of rounds? I guess in the end it is a personal decision.

I couldn’t agree more with this calculus.

On the other hand, and I’m not quite there in volunteering to be the test case, but why is there not a basis for suing for an unlawful taking?
Reply With Quote
  #3909  
Old 10-07-2021, 4:14 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,498
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NRA-Rider View Post
I couldn’t agree more with this calculus.

On the other hand, and I’m not quite there in volunteering to be the test case, but why is there not a basis for suing for an unlawful taking?
Your question, also contains the answer to your question.

Nobody wants to be the "test case". And spend untold thousands of dollars and months/years in litigation to recoup maybe hundreds of dollars worth of seized mags.

If they did, I have no doubt that a court would find such seizure of legally owned property, as an "illegal taking".

The PC- 18010, that what I see as unscrupulous LE, use to seize and destroy personal property. Is also IMHO opinion, intentionally misread by bent cops in order to further their anti 2A agenda. A practice that will continue until someone steps up and becomes the "test case".

In todays world, even if/when a test case is affirmed in favor of 2A. Bent cops will continue to be bent cops. As long as they, and their agency, can get away with it. Because of Qualified Immunity. Which protects them from law suits due to malfeasance. Even if they knowingly break the law.
Reply With Quote
  #3910  
Old 10-08-2021, 7:11 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,655
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
On the other hand, and I’m not quite there in volunteering to be the test case, but why is there not a basis for suing for an unlawful taking?
My guess is that the LEO has only taken LCM from criminals so they don't fight it . If he was at a local range and walking the line taking law abiding citizens LCM . I don't think that would end the same way as it does when he pulls a guy over for DUI or for what ever crime the "perp" will have a court date for . There lawyer likely will ask " are you sure your LCM is the hill you want to die on here" ? which the answer will almost always be no so they move on to the more pressing aligations .
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Reply With Quote
  #3911  
Old 10-09-2021, 5:56 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
Well, at least a very similar case from NJ may be picked up by SCOTUS.. should know Sep 27th... the 9th can play the slow roll game but other circuits with cases are heading to the big bench..
The NJ case wasn't denied, granted, or re-listed, meaning it's in "hold" mode by SCOTUS waiting for NYSRPA. The 9th should hold this case as well.
Reply With Quote
  #3912  
Old 10-09-2021, 11:21 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,692
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NRA-Rider View Post
I couldn’t agree more with this calculus.

On the other hand, and I’m not quite there in volunteering to be the test case, but why is there not a basis for suing for an unlawful taking?
A lot of folks like to believe that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from taking private property without compensation.

But that's not what the "Takings" clause of the Amendment provides. Here is the text of the pertinent part:

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Those three pesky words "for public use" change the common understanding quite a bit. While the California government is seeking to take your privately owned property (Large-Capacity Magazines), it does not intend to "use" them, it intends to destroy them.

I don't have the particular cases available to me to cite, but there have been several published cases that have applied a narrow view of the "public use" element of the Amendment and those cases have emboldened some lawmakers to propose various that would permit the "taking" of privately owned magazines so long as they are not "used" by the government.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #3913  
Old 10-09-2021, 11:51 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
A lot of folks like to believe that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from taking private property without compensation.

But that's not what the "Takings" clause of the Amendment provides. Here is the text of the pertinent part:

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Those three pesky words "for public use" change the common understanding quite a bit. While the California government is seeking to take your privately owned property (Large-Capacity Magazines), it does not intend to "use" them, it intends to destroy them.

I don't have the particular cases available to me to cite, but there have been several published cases that have applied a narrow view of the "public use" element of the Amendment and those cases have emboldened some lawmakers to propose various that would permit the "taking" of privately owned magazines so long as they are not "used" by the government.
They are using this taking to create additional public safety. So there actually is a use argument that can be brought up. The destruction of the magazines serves a supposed public good. It doesn't just mean they have to use the magazine as intended.
Reply With Quote
  #3914  
Old 10-09-2021, 12:17 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,692
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
They are using this taking to create additional public safety. So there actually is a use argument that can be brought up. The destruction of the magazines serves a supposed public good. It doesn't just mean they have to use the magazine as intended.
That's a very good argument, and one that I hope would prevail in an eventual court challenge. But what you're describing is a "Public Benefit" resulting from the taking. That is, or at least could be argued to be, something different than a "Public Use" of the item(s) taken.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #3915  
Old 10-09-2021, 5:23 PM
dave1947's Avatar
dave1947 dave1947 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: san diego,ca
Posts: 282
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

if a cop was walking the line taking mags, the RO should immediately trespass him
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3916  
Old 10-09-2021, 7:20 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,498
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
But that's not what the "Takings" clause of the Amendment provides. Here is the text of the pertinent part:
Quote:
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
They are using this taking to create additional public safety. So there actually is a use argument that can be brought up. The destruction of the magazines serves a supposed public good. It doesn't just mean they have to use the magazine as intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
That's a very good argument, and one that I hope would prevail in an eventual court challenge. But what you're describing is a "Public Benefit" resulting from the taking. That is, or at least could be argued to be, something different than a "Public Use" of the item(s) taken.
I concur with taperxs premise bolded above. And support that premise with this reasoning.

The "Public Benefit" that Rick relied on as premise for the taking is the RESULT of the destruction by the state. The actual "usage" occurred at the states discretion after the taking. So is the specific USE that the state chose.

And is defined by M-W as both;
Quote:
1 : to put into action or service : avail oneself of : and 5: to carry out a purpose or action by means of
Since the owner had no say in disposition of his property. Destruction is THE CHOSEN USE of the government. Regardless of their supposed motive for doing so.

And the constitutional quote above from the 5th A, isn't the only reference to property rights, takings, or seizures in the BoR.

Quote:
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Strong deference given by the legislature when they made pc18010 a statute.

Quote:
18010.
(a) The Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of, importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale, giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a nuisance under any of the following provisions:
Which required that the items listed in 18010 be "enjoined" by the AG, DA, or a City Attorney.

Last edited by pacrat; 10-09-2021 at 11:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3917  
Old 10-10-2021, 12:10 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,405
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
The destruction of the magazines serves a supposed public good. It doesn't just mean they have to use the magazine as intended.
While in the real world of logic that makes sense, in the "enlightened" universe of the court, this only works if the judge agrees with you ideologically, as to the final conclusion - anti gun rights, or pro gun rights.

An infinite amount of leeway/contortions are possible, any argumentation is usable, any pseudo logic is "consistent", as long as it supports the pre-determined conclusion they wish to come to.

To that extent, such an argument has utility. But so would saying "the sun sets in the east" if it supports the court's objectives.

The courts care not if an argument is sound or not (in the real world of logic). It either supports the predetermined conclusion the court desires, or it does not.

The courts pretend to be unbiased; they pretend to be logical; they pretend there is always an internal consistency. Perhaps this is true in other contexts and domains. Not with the 2A.

No, again, the outcomes are not dependent on whether or not your argumentation is sensible, if your logic is sound, if your conclusions are inescapable, if your thought processes are internally consistent.

The outcome of your case is entirely decided by the bias of the judge. Pro 2A rights or against.

The rest is window dressing.

The saddest thing, though, is that both judges and lawyers deny this.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 10-10-2021 at 12:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3918  
Old 10-12-2021, 7:04 AM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,437
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1947 View Post
if a cop was walking the line taking mags, the RO should immediately trespass him
That cop is only hurting any remaining appreciation for all the good ones who don’t pull that crap. We as gun owners are now forced into a position to affirm what was only a few decades ago thought of as “thoughts of criminals”, in that the police are not the good guys, not your friend, and in fact are nothing more than state-sponsored thieves on the subject of the 2A. Thieves who have a legal advantage in their competition with other common thieves, in that they are immune from prosecution by way of badges. Gun ownership in California is a total minefield, and a crippling blast can come from ANY direction.
For the time being, I leave any magazine that holds over ten rounds at home, as I don’t want to risk my personal property to blue collar theft.
Reply With Quote
  #3919  
Old 10-12-2021, 3:01 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,498
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
That cop is only hurting any remaining appreciation for all the good ones who don’t pull that crap. We as gun owners are now forced into a position to affirm what was only a few decades ago thought of as “thoughts of criminals”, in that the police are not the good guys, not your friend, and in fact are nothing more than state-sponsored thieves on the subject of the 2A. Thieves who have a legal advantage in their competition with other common thieves, in that they are immune from prosecution by way of badges. Gun ownership in California is a total minefield, and a crippling blast can come from ANY direction.
For the time being, I leave any magazine that holds over ten rounds at home, as I don’t want to risk my personal property to blue collar theft.
Not even leaving legally owned property "home" is protection against "Theft by Cop". Read how this guy got RIPPED OFF TWICE.

First burglars, then the cops.
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...2#post14262692

And that occurred pre prop 63.

As to the rest of your post. I will recap what I said back in 2014 in the linked thread.

Quote:
Because when as a small child your mother told you "the police are your friends". She didn't intentionally lie to you. She just didn't have the capacity to see the future.
"US v THEM" was created by leftist politicos to sew division between citizens and police. And it worked admirably, because the cops embraced it as making them SPECIAL.
Reply With Quote
  #3920  
Old 10-13-2021, 12:32 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,699
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
My guess is that the LEO has only taken LCM from criminals so they don't fight it . If he was at a local range and walking the line taking law abiding citizens LCM . I don't think that would end the same way as it does when he pulls a guy over for DUI or for what ever crime the "perp" will have a court date for . There lawyer likely will ask " are you sure your LCM is the hill you want to die on here" ? which the answer will almost always be no so they move on to the more pressing aligations .
That's certainly the way it seems in my area. My (mostly red) county has posted a lot of cases on social media where criminals were listed as being arrested (in part) for having LCM's. But in every case, that was just icing on the cake for a person who also had pounds of meth (or similar contraband), a felony history, and an illegal firearm or three. In most cases it's probably not included in the charges filed, but if it were, it's extremely unlikely that the criminal or his court appointed attorney are going to challenge that, given the much more serious charges that are in play.

I would not expect them to care in the least bit about Average Joe walking around with a LCM in his licensed CCW sidearm.
__________________
AW Reg. will be reopened Jan. '22 to those who weren't able to register by 7/2018. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!

Last edited by CandG; 10-13-2021 at 12:39 PM..
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 12:52 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical