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
  #2921  
Old 04-14-2019, 4:49 PM
zuverza zuverza is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 262
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

I don't believe in God or anything metaphysical but tonight I'm gonna say a prayer... Hell, i may even pray to the sacred virgin.
Reply With Quote
  #2922  
Old 04-15-2019, 5:39 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Still no updates, not even a mention on scotusblog
Reply With Quote
  #2923  
Old 04-15-2019, 5:40 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,881
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Awaiting to find out Pena status, but no new cases granted cert.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 04-15-2019 at 5:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2924  
Old 04-15-2019, 5:58 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,881
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I looked over the List quickly, but did not see it listed as denied/etc.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...19zor_h3dj.pdf

I therefore assume later today it's docket page will show it as Distributed for next Conference on the 18th, this Thurs.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....ic\18-843.html

Soooo, we'll all meet up -- same time, same place -- a week from now!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 04-15-2019 at 6:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2925  
Old 04-15-2019, 5:58 AM
scootle's Avatar
scootle scootle is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,606
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Only thing I saw on ScotusBlog was the orders issued from 4/12 which makes no mention of Pena.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...19zor_h3dj.pdf

Not sure I should be holding my breath at this point...
__________________
#2A4CA -- it has begun! https://www.2aforca.org/
Reply With Quote
  #2926  
Old 04-15-2019, 7:00 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,881
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

According to Alan Gura, via Twitter it’s been re listed
Reply With Quote
  #2927  
Old 04-15-2019, 7:04 AM
Mp5marley's Avatar
Mp5marley Mp5marley is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Inland empire x OC
Posts: 919
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

what does all this mean.???? don't have time to read 42 pages of blogs..
Reply With Quote
  #2928  
Old 04-15-2019, 7:15 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mp5marley View Post
what does all this mean.???? don't have time to read 42 pages of blogs..
The case is pending a decision to review by SCOTUS. It was scheduled to be reviewed on 4/12, but the court did not make a decision to take the case or deny the case. It will most likely be relisted for the next conference.

Good news is that it was not denied. Now we wait.
Reply With Quote
  #2929  
Old 04-15-2019, 7:32 AM
ZNiner ZNiner is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kekistan Republic
Posts: 1,044
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

In case anyone is wondering what relist means here is the definition from SCOTUSBLOG:

Quote:
Relist: A relist occurs when the justices consider a petition for certiorari at one of their private conferences but decline to act on it, instead “relisting” it, typically for the following conference. In recent years, the court has begun a practice of routinely relisting petitions that are under serious consideration for review at second or subsequent conferences prior to entering orders granting or denying certiorari. This practice is distinct from the justices holding a petition pending the disposition of another case.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2930  
Old 04-15-2019, 7:40 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,833
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Re-listed is a good sign. They typically do not take a case without relisting it first.
Reply With Quote
  #2931  
Old 04-15-2019, 7:42 AM
zuverza zuverza is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 262
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

So this is definitely good news!
Reply With Quote
  #2932  
Old 04-15-2019, 7:53 AM
ZNiner ZNiner is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kekistan Republic
Posts: 1,044
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuverza View Post
So this is definitely good news!
I hope this is good news. Getting tired of reading about SCOTUS taking cases involving wedding cakes while dodging anything related to the 2A.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2933  
Old 04-15-2019, 8:09 AM
canopis's Avatar
canopis canopis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 287
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNiner View Post
I hope this is good news. Getting tired of reading about SCOTUS taking cases involving wedding cakes while dodging anything related to the 2A.
I get you, but I would not want them to take any 2A case unless they were pretty sure they had 5 votes in our favor.
__________________
I am not a lawyer, so my dribbles are not legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #2934  
Old 04-15-2019, 11:52 AM
scootle's Avatar
scootle scootle is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,606
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

__________________
#2A4CA -- it has begun! https://www.2aforca.org/
Reply With Quote
  #2935  
Old 04-15-2019, 12:05 PM
busa busa is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 36
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Hope we win. then I can laugh at people who trying to sell G19 for 1000++
Reply With Quote
  #2936  
Old 04-15-2019, 12:43 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,175
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by busa View Post
Hope we win. then I can laugh at people who trying to sell G19 for 1000++
Does the G19 have an LCI and mag disconnect? Remember that the lawsuit right now only addresses microstamping — unless the justices decide to throw the whole thing out, you won’t see anything past Gen3.

Never mind - taperxz corrected me that it's the entire scheme, not just micro stamping.
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!

Last edited by ronlglock; 04-15-2019 at 1:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2937  
Old 04-15-2019, 12:57 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,881
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
Does the G19 have an LCI and mag disconnect? Remember that the lawsuit right now only addresses microstamping ó unless the justices decide to throw the whole thing out, you wonít see anything past Gen3.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, itís about the entire roster.
Reply With Quote
  #2938  
Old 04-15-2019, 1:19 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,175
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
No, itís about the entire roster.
You are correct and I shall update my OP.
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #2939  
Old 04-15-2019, 2:15 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,881
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
You are correct and I shall update my OP.
You may have confused this with the NSSF suit about micro stamping in the California court system
Reply With Quote
  #2940  
Old 04-15-2019, 2:18 PM
divert_fuse's Avatar
divert_fuse divert_fuse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
No, itís about the entire roster.
Yes and no. The lawsuit may challenge the entire roster, but the grounds for challenging it might not implicate the entire roster, but only the microstamping requirement.

A key point Pena raises in the cert petition is that no new guns are being added to the roster. Pena notes the shrinking roster size from 2013 (when microstamping came into effect). But what about the period from 2006-2013, when the requirement for LCI/MDM was in effect, but microstamping was not? Pena doesn't mention it. I can't find any actual data, but I did find a graph prepared by CGF in this article, which appears to show the number of guns on the roster going up at the beginning of that period. The roster doesn't start to shrink until 2009. Or at least that's what it looks like. Maybe somebody more familiar with the actual data can comment. As I say, I'm working with what I have here.

If the MDM requirement was accompanied by a rise in the number of guns on the roster, then Pena can't argue that it's a de-facto new handgun ban. He would have to argue that guns without them are the overwhelming choice of other Americans. This might or might not be persuasive.

In my view, the reason this rises to level of being worth SCOTUS's time is that it's a de facto handgun ban. If it's some arguably-unconstitutional safety feature requirement, SCOTUS has more important things to worry about. I think it's entirely possible that if they take the case and come down on our side, the decision won't even mention MDMs, but only microstamping. In which case, if the CA legislature replaces the law with a new one which just drops the microstamping requirement, they might get away with it.
Reply With Quote
  #2941  
Old 04-15-2019, 3:38 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,881
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by divert_fuse View Post
Yes and no. The lawsuit may challenge the entire roster, but the grounds for challenging it might not implicate the entire roster, but only the microstamping requirement.

A key point Pena raises in the cert petition is that no new guns are being added to the roster. Pena notes the shrinking roster size from 2013 (when microstamping came into effect). But what about the period from 2006-2013, when the requirement for LCI/MDM was in effect, but microstamping was not? Pena doesn't mention it. I can't find any actual data, but I did find a graph prepared by CGF in this article, which appears to show the number of guns on the roster going up at the beginning of that period. The roster doesn't start to shrink until 2009. Or at least that's what it looks like. Maybe somebody more familiar with the actual data can comment. As I say, I'm working with what I have here.

If the MDM requirement was accompanied by a rise in the number of guns on the roster, then Pena can't argue that it's a de-facto new handgun ban. He would have to argue that guns without them are the overwhelming choice of other Americans. This might or might not be persuasive.

In my view, the reason this rises to level of being worth SCOTUS's time is that it's a de facto handgun ban. If it's some arguably-unconstitutional safety feature requirement, SCOTUS has more important things to worry about. I think it's entirely possible that if they take the case and come down on our side, the decision won't even mention MDMs, but only microstamping. In which case, if the CA legislature replaces the law with a new one which just drops the microstamping requirement, they might get away with it.
Uh, no. Youíre wrong since this case existed prior to the micro stamping mandate. Itís about the entire roster period.
Reply With Quote
  #2942  
Old 04-15-2019, 4:39 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,884
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by divert_fuse View Post
Yes and no. The lawsuit may challenge the entire roster, but the grounds for challenging it might not implicate the entire roster, but only the microstamping requirement.

A key point Pena raises in the cert petition is that no new guns are being added to the roster. Pena notes the shrinking roster size from 2013 (when microstamping came into effect). But what about the period from 2006-2013, when the requirement for LCI/MDM was in effect, but microstamping was not? Pena doesn't mention it. I can't find any actual data, but I did find a graph prepared by CGF in this article, which appears to show the number of guns on the roster going up at the beginning of that period. The roster doesn't start to shrink until 2009. Or at least that's what it looks like. Maybe somebody more familiar with the actual data can comment. As I say, I'm working with what I have here.

If the MDM requirement was accompanied by a rise in the number of guns on the roster, then Pena can't argue that it's a de-facto new handgun ban. He would have to argue that guns without them are the overwhelming choice of other Americans. This might or might not be persuasive.

In my view, the reason this rises to level of being worth SCOTUS's time is that it's a de facto handgun ban. If it's some arguably-unconstitutional safety feature requirement, SCOTUS has more important things to worry about. I think it's entirely possible that if they take the case and come down on our side, the decision won't even mention MDMs, but only microstamping. In which case, if the CA legislature replaces the law with a new one which just drops the microstamping requirement, they might get away with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Uh, no. Youíre wrong since this case existed prior to the micro stamping mandate. Itís about the entire roster period.
That's what I recall. When the AG, certified (or whatever the process was) to compel microstamping, that was when the complaint was amended to include a challenge to the micro stamping mandate
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2943  
Old 04-15-2019, 5:33 PM
cire raeb cire raeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Kalfornia
Posts: 925
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by divert_fuse View Post
Yes and no. The lawsuit may challenge the entire roster, but the grounds for challenging it might not implicate the entire roster, but only the microstamping requirement.

A key point Pena raises in the cert petition is that no new guns are being added to the roster. Pena notes the shrinking roster size from 2013 (when microstamping came into effect). But what about the period from 2006-2013, when the requirement for LCI/MDM was in effect, but microstamping was not? Pena doesn't mention it. I can't find any actual data, but I did find a graph prepared by CGF in this article, which appears to show the number of guns on the roster going up at the beginning of that period. The roster doesn't start to shrink until 2009. Or at least that's what it looks like. Maybe somebody more familiar with the actual data can comment. As I say, I'm working with what I have here.

If the MDM requirement was accompanied by a rise in the number of guns on the roster, then Pena can't argue that it's a de-facto new handgun ban. He would have to argue that guns without them are the overwhelming choice of other Americans. This might or might not be persuasive.

In my view, the reason this rises to level of being worth SCOTUS's time is that it's a de facto handgun ban. If it's some arguably-unconstitutional safety feature requirement, SCOTUS has more important things to worry about. I think it's entirely possible that if they take the case and come down on our side, the decision won't even mention MDMs, but only microstamping. In which case, if the CA legislature replaces the law with a new one which just drops the microstamping requirement, they might get away with it.
This why I don’t donate. Unless the the entire roster gets scrapped; otherwise we lost!
Reply With Quote
  #2944  
Old 04-15-2019, 6:24 PM
busa busa is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 36
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

^^^ So you donate after winning? It seems like you donít fight with or fight to win but only support the winning side
Reply With Quote
  #2945  
Old 04-15-2019, 7:51 PM
Colt Colt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,410
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
No, itís about the entire roster.
So it includes the shoulder thing that goes up?
Reply With Quote
  #2946  
Old 04-15-2019, 8:45 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,562
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

This just in: the 9th circuit has ruled that the state of California's list of "approved words that may be spoken", and the prison sentences for speaking off-list words, is definitely not a violation of the 1st amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #2947  
Old 04-15-2019, 8:46 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,562
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt View Post
So it includes the shoulder thing that goes up?
You're thinking of the assault weapon ban, not the handgun roster. The assault weapon ban is what prohibits shoulder things that go up.
Reply With Quote
  #2948  
Old 04-15-2019, 10:55 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,698
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cire raeb View Post
This why I donít donate. Unless the the entire roster gets scrapped; otherwise we lost!


2A rights have been incrementally denied by the legislature over several decades.

In order to UNDO the 2A damage done over those decades. We as citizens must now INCREMENTALLY UNDO all that harm.

It's not an all or nothing battle.
Reply With Quote
  #2949  
Old 04-16-2019, 5:37 AM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,175
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cire raeb View Post
This why I donít donate. Unless the the entire roster gets scrapped; otherwise we lost!

Annnnndddddd this is why we keep losing. Need to donate FOR the win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #2950  
Old 04-16-2019, 6:18 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 633
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Re-listed is a good sign. They typically do not take a case without relisting it first.
I forget, but was the NYSRPA case re-listed or did they take it on the first go? (srs question)
Reply With Quote
  #2951  
Old 04-16-2019, 7:46 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,884
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cire raeb View Post
This why I donít donate. Unless the the entire roster gets scrapped; otherwise we lost!
How are the lawsuits and appeals to be filed without funding?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2952  
Old 04-16-2019, 8:22 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 jack-booted gov thug
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code ß 798
Posts: 15,330
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by selfshrevident View Post
I forget, but was the NYSRPA case re-listed or did they take it on the first go? (srs question)
Distributed for conference twice:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...york-new-york/
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #2953  
Old 04-16-2019, 9:52 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 633
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
Nice. I just remember back in the day seeing every significant 2A case get before the SCOTUS, only to be re-listed a dozen times before getting rejected. Those were disappointing times.
Reply With Quote
  #2954  
Old 04-16-2019, 10:10 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,881
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Reverse and remand would be nice
Reply With Quote
  #2955  
Old 04-16-2019, 10:12 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,884
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by selfshrevident View Post
Nice. I just remember back in the day seeing every significant 2A case get before the SCOTUS, only to be re-listed a dozen times before getting rejected. Those were disappointing times.
That is possible this time too. SCOTUS receives hundreds upon hundreds of Cert Petitions, and grants a relative few...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2956  
Old 04-16-2019, 10:13 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,884
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Reverse and remand would be nice
GVR would be just fine, not that I think it is likely....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2957  
Old 04-16-2019, 10:20 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,610
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

During all these re-listings, they are reminding each other of the case.

Don't think they don't think about these things, just the way you and I think about work issues even off the clock.

There are countless water-cooler conversations, remarks, aides talking among themselves and other subtle ways of the Justice's inclinations on a case leaking out. If they think they've got 5 votes for a decision they think they can live with... they may vote for the case to be heard. If the tendrils come back with "we've got four and a half, very mushy, lots of compromise required to get the fifth vote" - then it's a different story. Believe me, in that latter case, they're doing us a favor long term as well as the rest of the country and all our future descendants.

I'd prefer they turn the case down for hearing if, in order to get that 5th vote, they have to dilute it to the point of presenting a "Solomon's Solution" (cutting the baby in half to satisfy a parentage dispute). The real mother cries out "NO! Give her the baby." - preferring her child to be raised by a lying stranger than to be killed outright. If you care about the 2A, you'd cry out "NO!" on hearing a case where the decision might end up getting the 2nd Amendment neutered.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #2958  
Old 04-16-2019, 10:28 AM
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 29
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Being re-listed isn't really a "win" except that it wasn't denied right?

Every case that isn't denied, or granted cert, or remanded with instructions, gets re-listed, right?
Reply With Quote
  #2959  
Old 04-16-2019, 10:38 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,881
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
GVR would be just fine, not that I think it is likely....
So, my reason for thinking this is possible is because it is a blatantly violation of Heller, (Dick Hellers gun could not be sold new in California) plus the Roster of Handguns is very unique to California
Reply With Quote
  #2960  
Old 04-16-2019, 10:48 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,884
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
So, my reason for thinking this is possible is because it is a blatantly violation of Heller, (Dick Hellers gun could not be sold new in California) plus the Roster of Handguns is very unique to California
Donít get me wrong, I hope you have called it the result. But I have been disappointed a few times watching SCOTUS.
__________________
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 5:00 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.