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
  #841  
Old 03-29-2023, 4:28 PM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
WRONG (AGAIN)

Infringed doesn't mean eliminated. It means what it says.
If that's what you want to believe I'm not going to stop you.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery
Reply With Quote
  #842  
Old 03-29-2023, 5:39 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 159
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If we are being realistic, the injunction and appeal of the interlocutory injunction are virtually meaningless other that as a signal of the judge's inclination. Even if the application of the 3 requirements is enjoined until the final decision is rendered, two things have to happen before a single additional firearm can be sold in California to the masses. First, a firearm company has to be willing to submit an application for approval and second, the state has to process that application. How many companies will be interested in starting the process without a final adjudication of the case? Will, for instance, Sig want to submit their myriad different versions of the P320 only to risk seeing the law upheld ultimately. Second, the new firearm must still receive approval from the state even if submitted. Does anyone doubt that any approval would be slow walked with multiple questions/issues raised by the state such that no approval will come about until well after the case has received final judgment. So, to me, preliminary injunction or TRO has virtually no impact on whether a new gun will be added to the roster. I suspect there will have to be a final non-appealable judgement eliminating the 3 requirements or the entire roster before any meaningful addition is made to the roster.
Reply With Quote
  #843  
Old 03-29-2023, 5:56 PM
cyphr02's Avatar
cyphr02 cyphr02 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 477
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunuser17 View Post
If we are being realistic, the injunction and appeal of the interlocutory injunction are virtually meaningless other that as a signal of the judge's inclination. Even if the application of the 3 requirements is enjoined until the final decision is rendered, two things have to happen before a single additional firearm can be sold in California to the masses. First, a firearm company has to be willing to submit an application for approval and second, the state has to process that application. How many companies will be interested in starting the process without a final adjudication of the case? Will, for instance, Sig want to submit their myriad different versions of the P320 only to risk seeing the law upheld ultimately. Second, the new firearm must still receive approval from the state even if submitted. Does anyone doubt that any approval would be slow walked with multiple questions/issues raised by the state such that no approval will come about until well after the case has received final judgment. So, to me, preliminary injunction or TRO has virtually no impact on whether a new gun will be added to the roster. I suspect there will have to be a final non-appealable judgement eliminating the 3 requirements or the entire roster before any meaningful addition is made to the roster.
All the more reason they will rush to submit applications. If the law is upheld, the added firearms won't be magically removed from the roster, they will be maintained like all of the other grandfathered models that re on it today that don't have the 3 features. The state also has a time limit to process the applications, so they can't just sit on them until a final ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #844  
Old 03-29-2023, 6:19 PM
michigander michigander is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunuser17 View Post
If we are being realistic, the injunction and appeal of the interlocutory injunction are virtually meaningless other that as a signal of the judge's inclination. Even if the application of the 3 requirements is enjoined until the final decision is rendered, two things have to happen before a single additional firearm can be sold in California to the masses. First, a firearm company has to be willing to submit an application for approval and second, the state has to process that application. How many companies will be interested in starting the process without a final adjudication of the case? Will, for instance, Sig want to submit their myriad different versions of the P320 only to risk seeing the law upheld ultimately. Second, the new firearm must still receive approval from the state even if submitted. Does anyone doubt that any approval would be slow walked with multiple questions/issues raised by the state such that no approval will come about until well after the case has received final judgment. So, to me, preliminary injunction or TRO has virtually no impact on whether a new gun will be added to the roster. I suspect there will have to be a final non-appealable judgement eliminating the 3 requirements or the entire roster before any meaningful addition is made to the roster.
what is the risk in trying? The cost to add a gun is pretty minimal, especially for popular models.
Reply With Quote
  #845  
Old 03-29-2023, 6:32 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,334
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Mark Smith dropped another gem.
Footnote #11 of Bruen.
https://youtu.be/TccT0l18Sy0

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
__________________
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
  #846  
Old 03-29-2023, 7:25 PM
Zenderfall Zenderfall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Near Alco Target
Posts: 490
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darto View Post
According to this video the written appeal against the judge's ruling is mostly based on the increased workload of the civil servants doing the testing. They might have to actually work overtime !!!
That shows how little they know about their own testing system. The labs doing the testing are not government-run. They're private, and located in MD and IL. Not even in CA! Good to hear the opposition fumbling on their own arguments.

* The following laboratories are currently certified by the Department of Justice to test handguns for safety/functionality related to this requirement:

NTS Technical Systems-Belcamp
4603B Compass Point Road
Belcamp, MD 21017
(410) 297-8154

Professional Analysis and Consulting, Inc.
4951 Indiana Ave, # 600
Lisle , IL 60532
(630) 466-4040

Taken from their own website:

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/labcert
__________________
NRA Pistol/Rifle Instructor
CADOJ Certified Instructor
NRA Pistol/Rimfire Rifle Distinguished Expert
NRA RSO, IDPA Safety Officer
NRA & CRPA Member
Veteran, 1994-1998

Last edited by Zenderfall; 03-29-2023 at 7:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #847  
Old 03-29-2023, 7:37 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darto View Post
Let's all take time to feel sorry for the poor little government workers who are going to have to retest all the hordes of new handguns submitted.
Please be clear - CA DOJ/gov't doesn't test the handguns. They merely process & accept the filing and store the submitted exemplar guns.
They at best may examine that they have the requisite safety features.

Actual performance testing of the handguns (drop test, firing test) is
performed by one of several certified/approved 3rd party test labs.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #848  
Old 03-29-2023, 7:42 PM
algebraist algebraist is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Bay Area, SF
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That Mark E. Smith video ...

My GOD what a loud shouting blowhard.

It took him 7 bloody minutes to get to the point. So for anyone else thinking of clicking, spare yourself the hyperbole and skip to about 6.30 in and turn off at about 8 minutes in.
Reply With Quote
  #849  
Old 03-29-2023, 8:47 PM
ProfChaos's Avatar
ProfChaos ProfChaos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Folsom
Posts: 299
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by algebraist View Post
That Mark E. Smith video ...

My GOD what a loud shouting blowhard.

It took him 7 bloody minutes to get to the point. So for anyone else thinking of clicking, spare yourself the hyperbole and skip to about 6.30 in and turn off at about 8 minutes in.
So we have an "armed scholar 2.0" on our hands? I think all their videos are great at first, but once they run out of material, it all becomes click bait.

On the subject, I bet Franklin Arms is pissed they got approval for their single shot Sig 320 after all the hassle.
__________________
"The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia." -George Orwell 1984

1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a "How To" guide.

Time magazine bragging about how they stole the election: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Reply With Quote
  #850  
Old 03-29-2023, 8:49 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Actual performance testing of the handguns (drop test, firing test) is
performed by one of several certified/approved 3rd party test labs.
Does this mean anyone can submit a firearm for testing?
__________________
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
  #851  
Old 03-29-2023, 8:50 PM
Superben104 Superben104 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfChaos View Post
I bet Franklin Arms is pissed they got approval for their single shot Sig 320 after all the hassle.
Well, that depends on how long Bonta and Newsom try to drag out the inevitable.

Might be worth picking one up after all.
__________________
10/03/2022 | App submitted
02/06/2023 | Interview
02/07/2023 | Livescan
02/12/2023 | Qualification
02/17/2023 | Permit Picked up
Reply With Quote
  #852  
Old 03-29-2023, 9:50 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 56,432
iTrader: 119 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michigander View Post
The way I read that text, I?m not sure the Glock LCI requires any mechanical changes.
Some hi-viz paint on the extractor and text on the slide should suffice.
Am I wrong?
You are correct but the MDM is not nearly as simple to institute.
Glock would have to produce a CA model to be able to add that feature and the painted extractor and the additional slide markings for the CLI but it's probably possible if they can figure out the MDM without needing to mold a different frame.
__________________
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
  #853  
Old 03-29-2023, 10:02 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 56,432
iTrader: 119 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunuser17 View Post
If we are being realistic, the injunction and appeal of the interlocutory injunction are virtually meaningless other that as a signal of the judge's inclination. Even if the application of the 3 requirements is enjoined until the final decision is rendered, two things have to happen before a single additional firearm can be sold in California to the masses. First, a firearm company has to be willing to submit an application for approval and second, the state has to process that application. How many companies will be interested in starting the process without a final adjudication of the case? Will, for instance, Sig want to submit their myriad different versions of the P320 only to risk seeing the law upheld ultimately. Second, the new firearm must still receive approval from the state even if submitted. Does anyone doubt that any approval would be slow walked with multiple questions/issues raised by the state such that no approval will come about until well after the case has received final judgment. So, to me, preliminary injunction or TRO has virtually no impact on whether a new gun will be added to the roster. I suspect there will have to be a final non-appealable judgement eliminating the 3 requirements or the entire roster before any meaningful addition is made to the roster.
Per codified law, the state has 10 days from the application for publishing on the roster until the handgun must get added to the roster.
The only thing that should be able to extend that would be a failure of some requirements to be met, but a company should have all those requirements in order before they apply so that the application can be processed in a timely manner.

You do your drop testing and live fire testing with the independent lab before you even apply.
Once you pass the testing and you meet the manual safety requirements, there's not really anything the state can do to NOT process your application.
They are bound by the laws of the process.
Reply With Quote
  #854  
Old 03-29-2023, 10:12 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I wonder if manufacturers who have MA Compliant models already got them tested and can simply submit that test data with an application. If I was marketing manager at a manufacturer that’s what I would do. Increase sales on 10 more models for less than $1000 in marketing expenses.
__________________
CRPA Member
Reply With Quote
  #855  
Old 03-30-2023, 12:04 AM
Zenderfall Zenderfall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Near Alco Target
Posts: 490
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

These are facilities Massachussetts approved for testing:

NTS - Wichita
7477 W. 33rd St. North
Wichita, KS 67205
(316) 832-1600
www.nts.com/locations/wichita

NTS - Chesapeake Testing
4603 Compass Point Rd
Belcamp, MD 21017
(410) 297-8154
www.nts.com/location/belcamp-md

Professional Analysis and Consulting, Inc
4951 Indiana Ave
Suite 600
Lisle, IL 60532
(630) 446-4040
www.proaaci.com

And these are California's approved:

NTS Technical Systems-Belcamp
4603B Compass Point Road
Belcamp, MD 21017
(410) 297-8154

Professional Analysis and Consulting, Inc.
4951 Indiana Ave, # 600
Lisle , IL 60532
(630) 466-4040

As you can see, two are the same (MD and IL). These were taken from CA and MA's websites. So the answer seems to be probably. However, the harder part is satisfying both the CLI (not LCI, there's a difference as I recently found out!) and Mag Discon that the sometime in the not-so-far future may require. I think MA's roster requirements are a tad more lax than CA's.
__________________
NRA Pistol/Rifle Instructor
CADOJ Certified Instructor
NRA Pistol/Rimfire Rifle Distinguished Expert
NRA RSO, IDPA Safety Officer
NRA & CRPA Member
Veteran, 1994-1998
Reply With Quote
  #856  
Old 03-30-2023, 5:31 AM
Spyder's Avatar
Spyder Spyder is offline
Honorary MLC
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a shack, in the woods
Posts: 16,091
iTrader: 126 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
Per codified law, the state has 10 days from the application for publishing on the roster until the handgun must get added to the roster.
The only thing that should be able to extend that would be a failure of some requirements to be met, but a company should have all those requirements in order before they apply so that the application can be processed in a timely manner.

You do your drop testing and live fire testing with the independent lab before you even apply.
Once you pass the testing and you meet the manual safety requirements, there's not really anything the state can do to NOT process your application.
They are bound by the laws of the process.
They aren't bound by ****. The law SAYS it has to be done in a certain amount of time, but there is no penalty for missing that deadline and they know it. The state blows off deadlines and laws all the time.
Reply With Quote
  #857  
Old 03-30-2023, 6:09 AM
kenl's Avatar
kenl kenl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: back home
Posts: 1,591
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

One thing ignoring the timeline can do is to open themselves up to further lawsuits, and gives another reason to eliminate the roster entirely.
__________________


California, the once-great first world state that is now a corrupt third world socialist cesspool.
Reply With Quote
  #858  
Old 03-30-2023, 6:17 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 2,587
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
If that's what you want to believe I'm not going to stop you.
You are correct. As a matter of policy, I eschew BS.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #859  
Old 03-30-2023, 7:58 AM
SteveH SteveH is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,576
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfChaos View Post
So we have an "armed scholar 2.0" on our hands? I think all their videos are great at first, but once they run out of material, it all becomes click bait.

On the subject, I bet Franklin Arms is pissed they got approval for their single shot Sig 320 after all the hassle.
Nah, they were first and will sell a bunch.

It might be many months before we see new guns added to the roster. Then there is the inevitable shortages when California buys the entire national supply. If your not in the first group of buyers be prepared to wait
Reply With Quote
  #860  
Old 03-30-2023, 10:27 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,417
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Does this mean anyone can submit a firearm for testing?
No.

Quote:
32005.

(a) Every person who is licensed as a manufacturer of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and who manufactures firearms in this state shall certify under penalty of perjury and any other remedy provided by law that every model, kind, class, style, or type of pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person that the person manufactures is not an unsafe handgun as prohibited by Sections 31900 to 32110, inclusive.

(b) Every person who imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale any firearm shall certify under penalty of perjury and any other remedy provided by law that every model, kind, class, style, or type of pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person that the person imports, keeps, or exposes for sale is not an unsafe handgun as prohibited by Sections 31900 to 32110, inclusive.
For example, Bob the collector could not submit some milsurp rarity that is not yet C&R but Century Arms could.

See also 11 CCR ? 4059
"(c) Other than the DOJ, only the manufacturer/importer of a handgun model is authorized to submit that handgun model to a DOJ-Certified Laboratory for testing."
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"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
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.




Last edited by Librarian; 03-30-2023 at 10:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #861  
Old 03-30-2023, 10:35 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
No.

For example, Bob the collector could not submit some milsurp rarity
that is not yet C&R but Century Arms could.
This is how the Sig P6 (a P225 variant) got on the Roster - it was submitted by PW Arms (an
importer: PacWest Arms in WA). They also Rostered the Walther P1 for awhile.

I am unclear if a Sig P6 identical to the one imported by PWA - but not imported by that firm -
would be defendably considerable as Rostered. [This is a bit different than SKU variants.]
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #862  
Old 03-30-2023, 12:05 PM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
You are correct. As a matter of policy, I eschew BS.
Good luck with that.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery
Reply With Quote
  #863  
Old 03-30-2023, 12:21 PM
Superben104 Superben104 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIDLlVpFiAo">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIDLlVpFiAo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350">

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIDLlVpFiAo



Not sure why the youtube embed isn't working.
__________________
10/03/2022 | App submitted
02/06/2023 | Interview
02/07/2023 | Livescan
02/12/2023 | Qualification
02/17/2023 | Permit Picked up

Last edited by Superben104; 03-30-2023 at 12:26 PM.. Reason: link not working
Reply With Quote
  #864  
Old 03-30-2023, 12:28 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superben104 View Post



Not sure why the youtube embed isn't working.

I don't like what this guy is saying. FYI The youtube tag doesn't take the whole url.

Last edited by abinsinia; 03-30-2023 at 12:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #865  
Old 03-30-2023, 12:38 PM
Superben104 Superben104 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I don't like what this guy is saying. FYI The youtube tag doesn't take the whole url.



Weird. I must be missing something.
__________________
10/03/2022 | App submitted
02/06/2023 | Interview
02/07/2023 | Livescan
02/12/2023 | Qualification
02/17/2023 | Permit Picked up
Reply With Quote
  #866  
Old 03-30-2023, 12:51 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superben104 View Post



Weird. I must be missing something.
You just use part of the url not the whole url bolded below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIDLlVpFiAo
Reply With Quote
  #867  
Old 03-30-2023, 12:56 PM
Superben104 Superben104 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Got it! Thank you for taking the time to share.
__________________
10/03/2022 | App submitted
02/06/2023 | Interview
02/07/2023 | Livescan
02/12/2023 | Qualification
02/17/2023 | Permit Picked up
Reply With Quote
  #868  
Old 03-30-2023, 1:57 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
32005.

(a) Every person who is licensed as a manufacturer of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and who manufactures firearms in this state shall certify under penalty of perjury and any other remedy provided by law that every model, kind, class, style, or type of pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person that the person manufactures is not an unsafe handgun as prohibited by Sections 31900 to 32110, inclusive.

(b) Every person who imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale any firearm shall certify under penalty of perjury and any other remedy provided by law that every model, kind, class, style, or type of pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person that the person imports, keeps, or exposes for sale is not an unsafe handgun as prohibited by Sections 31900 to 32110, inclusive.
Quote:
See also 11 CCR ? 4059
"(c) Other than the DOJ, only the manufacturer/importer of a handgun model is authorized to submit that handgun model to a DOJ-Certified Laboratory for testing."
Seems to me this should be challenged if Boland succeeds but Renna fails. It doesn't seem to have any other purpose but to make it difficult to add to the roster.
__________________
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
  #869  
Old 03-30-2023, 3:00 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 23,178
iTrader: 223 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by algebraist View Post
That Mark E. Smith video ...

My GOD what a loud shouting blowhard.

It took him 7 bloody minutes to get to the point. So for anyone else thinking of clicking, spare yourself the hyperbole and skip to about 6.30 in and turn off at about 8 minutes in.
Yeah he is a real treat, very hard to watch that guy.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #870  
Old 03-30-2023, 3:43 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Filed (ECF) Appellees Lance Boland, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Reno May, Mario Santellan and Jerome Schammel response opposing motion ([2] Motion (ECF Filing), [2] Motion (ECF Filing) motion to stay lower court action). Date of service: 03/30/2023. [12686085] [23-55276] (Frank, Alexander) [Entered: 03/30/2023 04:32 PM]
Quote:
Filed (ECF) Appellees Lance Boland, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Reno May, Mario Santellan and Jerome Schammel Motion to take judicial notice of their Opposition to Appellant's Emergency Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3 for a Partial Stay of the Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and for an Interim Administrative Stay Entered Before April 3, 2023. Date of service: 03/30/2023. [12686094] [23-55276] (Frank, Alexander) [Entered: 03/30/2023 04:36 PM]
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...d-v-rob-bonta/

It's about that time.
Reply With Quote
  #871  
Old 03-30-2023, 4:13 PM
CGZ's Avatar
CGZ CGZ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 980
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

The state's response is due by 12:00 PM tomorrow. I recon we'll know 9CA's decision by 5:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #872  
Old 03-30-2023, 4:14 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGZ View Post
The state's response is due by 12:00 PM tomorrow. I recon we'll know 9CA's decision by 5:00 PM.
Don't they have till Monday ?
Reply With Quote
  #873  
Old 03-30-2023, 4:25 PM
CGZ's Avatar
CGZ CGZ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 980
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Don't they have till Monday ?
Quote:
The court has received appellant?s emergency motion for a stay pending
appeal. The response to that motion is due by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on March
30, 2023. The optional reply in support of the motion is due by 12:00 p.m. Pacific
Time on March 31, 2023
.
State's response is due tomorrow at 12:00 PM as I read the above statement. Though I guess 9CA could wait till Monday, the day the injunction would go into effect.
Reply With Quote
  #874  
Old 03-30-2023, 4:53 PM
JohnnyDangerously's Avatar
JohnnyDangerously JohnnyDangerously is online now
Cigar and a waffle?
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: San Jose
Posts: 216
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Here is a link to the opposition motion:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...rtial_Stay.pdf

Last edited by JohnnyDangerously; 03-30-2023 at 4:54 PM.. Reason: God’s will
Reply With Quote
  #875  
Old 03-30-2023, 5:21 PM
Mithrandir13's Avatar
Mithrandir13 Mithrandir13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRhpAyeHe1g

__________________
The founding fathers did a wonderful thing when they included the second amendment to the constitution...

Yes... and this! http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

Good Guys with Guns HERE
Reply With Quote
  #876  
Old 03-30-2023, 5:33 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyDangerously View Post
Here is a link to the opposition motion:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...rtial_Stay.pdf
From the opposition.

Appellees did not ask the district court to enjoin the requirements that handguns pass a firing reliability test, drop safety test, or have a positive manually operated safety device to be eligible for admission to the Roster.

My question is why not? These requirements are not required in the vast majority of states. I understand that this case predates Bruen and you attack the low hanging fruit first. Good thing that Renna picked up the ball.
Reply With Quote
  #877  
Old 03-30-2023, 5:53 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyDangerously View Post
Here is a link to the opposition motion:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...rtial_Stay.pdf
Can't say I like their response. Why would they quote the one part of the decision that could undermine them in the long run?
Whereas CLI and MDM requirements add additional features to and alter the operation off an otherwise well-manufactured handgun, proving laws focused only on confirming the basic operating features of a firearm. Whereas CLI and MDM requirements aim to prevent harm to others resulting from the user not knowing the firearm is loaded, proving laws targeted the firearm itself and aimed to protect the safety of the person using the firearm. Whereas CLI and MDM requirements are effectuated by checking only a few examples of a particular handgun model, proving laws were effectuated by examining each firearm manufactured. Whereas proving laws supported the use of firearms for self-defense by ensuring the weapon worked properly and safely, the MDM requirement can actually work against the use of a handgun for self-defense because it will not fire without the magazine.
What's to keep the state from saying "Fine, screw the roster. We'll just make sure each firearm sold is examined by a 'state appointed inspector' who would 'ensure it would not fail and that it could carry a shot over a certain distance' and who 'stamped passing firearms with the inspector's initials and the year '"?

That would increase the cost of any firearm significantly, and be even worse than the roster.

Take the microstamp win, which at least ensures new guns can make it to the market, without laying the groundwork for something worse than CLI and MDM requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #878  
Old 03-30-2023, 6:12 PM
SpudmanWP SpudmanWP is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,125
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Remember SCOTUS's instructions on the "How and Why" a law was passed in relation to firearms regulation. Proofing laws were put in place due to the immaturity & variety when it came to metallurgy in relation to firearms. They don't do that anymore because technology has advanced to the stage that it is no longer needed.

If the state wanted to put an inspector in Sig's plant to "verify" each gun as it goes through Sig's own tests, ok. That would cost what, $150k a year spread out through how many guns sold, hundreds of thousands. A buck or two per gun at most.
Reply With Quote
  #879  
Old 03-30-2023, 6:29 PM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 8,091
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Proving laws are no longer relevant. With all of the regulations on manufacturing and on safety standards, it's a nonsense argument that it is needed to ensure that a firearm is "safe." Not hard to show that this is merely another attempt to BAN entire classes of firearms and therefore prohibited based on Heller.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page


NRA Memberships at Discounted fee
Reply With Quote
  #880  
Old 03-30-2023, 6:47 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 1,931
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Seems to be well written and shreds the states arguments. It will be interesting to see what the state submits tomorrow. I can't see the ninth sticking it's neck out on this. It would take some pretty amazing gymnastics to justify granting the AG what he wants. They may do it but an appeal to USSC might not be the attention they want. I think they will let this alone until the case is settled and appealed to them. They would have more room to get what the state wants then. We will see. I know others will disagree and that's their choice. We should be able to discuss differences of opinion without being idiots.
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 8:56 AM.




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