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
  #321  
Old 09-30-2019, 7:54 PM
bubbapug1's Avatar
bubbapug1 bubbapug1 is offline
Ball Pimp 4 Border Collie
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South South OC
Posts: 7,520
iTrader: 287 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=ronlglock;23462606]So 42 prohibited persons were stopped from buying ammunition in July and August. Meanwhile, 30,000 presumably legal purchasers also were blocked.

That's the point. To block the legal ones.
__________________
I love America for the rights and freedoms we used to have.
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 09-30-2019, 8:06 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,580
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It appears this will be the judge asking the state where they are at and if they will be able to comply with the order to get the info he requested . My guess is the state will ask for more time which will be granted . However if the state comes in there all aloof not appearing to have even made an effort . The judge may get pissed and rule right then and there . That's not likely but fingers crossed lol .

Either way I won't be able to make it if it's tomorrow .

Quote:
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/1/2019 01:00 PM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ode-v-becerra/
Are we sure this is the correct date ? My buddy has not received any notice of a hearing and received an email today saying they have no date scheduled for the next hearing . In the link above I see a notice of hearing but no date shown , am I missing something ? To be clear I'm not saying there isn't anything going on tomorrow , just that I can't find anything official either in the link or from my buddy who is a party in the suite . Unless "Telephonic Status Conference" just means conference call ? Does that mean both sides and the judge will be on a conference call that will be recorded ?
__________________
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

Last edited by Metal God; 09-30-2019 at 8:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 09-30-2019, 8:17 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Unless "Telephonic Status Conference" just means conference call ? Does that mean both sides and the judge will be on a conference call that will be recorded ?
Correct (although I don't know if these are recorded). From the hearing notice:

Quote:
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/1/2019 01:00 PM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez. Plaintiff counsel to email Judge Benitez's chambers ... by 5:00PM on 9/30/2019 one toll-free telephone number and pass code to allow the Court to access the conference call. (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 09/25/2019)
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 09-30-2019, 10:00 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,580
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ok thanks
__________________
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
  #325  
Old 10-01-2019, 12:13 PM
offrdmania's Avatar
offrdmania offrdmania is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 3,611
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Eagerly awaiting the transcript of the conference call
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unnamed Liberal
"Gator Monroe posts are like a good fart, sometimes they make you laugh but they always stink".
***FS Long Slide CZ75 SA***
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 10-01-2019, 1:55 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,067
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by offrdmania View Post
Eagerly awaiting the transcript of the conference call
I suspect it will be procedural, not subject-matter. When can they schedule trial? When will certain pre-trial events happen? that sort of thing.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 10-01-2019, 2:35 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,272
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Giffords will be filing a brief later today or tomorrow. Their lawyer just filed a pro hace vice application. That is a form that out of state lawyers have to file to practice in a case.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Rhoades Pro hace motion.pdf (84.1 KB, 23 views)
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato

Last edited by wolfwood; 10-01-2019 at 4:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 10-01-2019, 3:01 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 694
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

No transcript of the hearing was taken.

Judge Benitez requested additional information from both sides to assist him in making a decision on our preliminary injunction motion. So we likely will not see a ruling for some time. We will try to update you all as things happen.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 10-01-2019, 3:33 PM
Divehobo's Avatar
Divehobo Divehobo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Massachusetts West
Posts: 893
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Thanks for all of the updates. I'm sure there are lots of folks anxiously waiting with credit card in hand.
__________________
President of Front Sight
NRA Endowment member

PM me for your FrontSight needs.

WTB: Sig 220 Legion
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 10-01-2019, 4:12 PM
ACfixer's Avatar
ACfixer ACfixer is online now
Global Warming Enthusiast
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: KAPV-L35 SoCal
Posts: 2,596
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbapug1 View Post
Meanwhile, 30,000 presumably legal purchasers also were blocked.
Make that 30,001 as my GF was denied today. Zero criminal or traffic issues ever, CCW holder, 5 handgun owner.
__________________


Buy made in USA whenever possible.
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 10-01-2019, 6:52 PM
deckhandmike's Avatar
deckhandmike deckhandmike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Morro Bay
Posts: 5,481
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
No transcript of the hearing was taken.

Judge Benitez requested additional information from both sides to assist him in making a decision on our preliminary injunction motion. So we likely will not see a ruling for some time. We will try to update you all as things happen.
What is “some time” in legal terms? Like weeks or several months?
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 10-01-2019, 8:51 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deckhandmike View Post
What is “some time” in legal terms? Like weeks or several months?
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 10-01-2019, 9:47 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,067
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deckhandmike View Post
What is “some time” in legal terms? Like weeks or several months?
Undefined - Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal are pretty much without time constraints.

I can't recall which court it was, but seems to me some litigants filed for a writ of mandamus (legal latin for 'get off your butts and do your job') a few years ago, because some case(s) had been hanging for years.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 10-02-2019, 8:55 AM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 1,988
iTrader: 86 / 100%
Default

Here in California, state judges have to decide a case in 90 days or less OR don't get paid!
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 10-02-2019, 6:52 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,580
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
What is “some time” in legal terms? Like weeks or several months?
This is likely going to take quite some time ( months ) . Sorry I can't say more at this time but there is a reason .
__________________
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

Last edited by Metal God; 10-02-2019 at 6:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 10-02-2019, 9:05 PM
deckhandmike's Avatar
deckhandmike deckhandmike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Morro Bay
Posts: 5,481
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

That’s fine. I was just trying to decide if I’m going to get into reloading. Looks like I am.
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 10-02-2019, 11:20 PM
Maulerrr's Avatar
Maulerrr Maulerrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 889
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACfixer View Post
Make that 30,001 as my GF was denied today. Zero criminal or traffic issues ever, CCW holder, 5 handgun owner.
Sounds like she must be recruiting for ISIS
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 10-03-2019, 7:13 AM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,580
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
I was just trying to decide if I’m going to get into reloading. Looks like I am.
I was at the gunshow this past weekend and overheard a guy saying they are already looking at legislation to require background checks and reloading components as well . Not to derail the thread but has anyone else heard this or was it someone just talking out there …. ?
__________________
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
  #339  
Old 10-03-2019, 9:54 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,122
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
I was at the gunshow this past weekend and overheard a guy saying they are already looking at legislation to require background checks and reloading components as well . Not to derail the thread but has anyone else heard this or was it someone just talking out there …. ?
No. They were probably thinking of precursor parts. Check this thread
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...ight=precursor
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 10-03-2019, 11:10 AM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 2,104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
I was at the gunshow this past weekend and overheard a guy saying they are already looking at legislation to require background checks and reloading components as well . Not to derail the thread but has anyone else heard this or was it someone just talking out there …. ?
__________________
Quote:
"The 'Spray and Pray' system advances triumphantly in law enforcement. In a recent case in a southwestern city...a police officer, when threatened with a handgun, emptied his 15 shot pistol at his would-be assailant, achieving two peripheral hits. The citizen was charged with brandishing a firearm, but the cop was not charged with anything, lousy shooting not being a diciplinary offense."
--- Jeff Cooper, June 1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2
Put you link where your opinion is.
Reply With Quote
  #341  
Old 10-03-2019, 4:43 PM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nevada
Posts: 3,856
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
I heard the same thing
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 10-04-2019, 8:02 AM
SteveH SteveH is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,463
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
This is likely going to take quite some time ( months ) . Sorry I can't say more at this time but there is a reason .
Not liking the sound of that! State needs time to compile data on denials? Or on hold for NYSRPA like seemingly every other gun rights case?
Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 10-04-2019, 8:44 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,696
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
1. It isn't a "loophole"; it's a black-letter law.

2. Every law can be changed, but given the reasoning behind the ammo laws, it will be difficult to make the case that folks with federal and state credentials/clearance, are a threat for supplying gangsters with ammo.
1. I meant for the word loophole to be tongue in cheek, since it's a catch-all phrase politicians use to describe exemptions they don't like.

2. They don't need to explain themselves or make a case, as you already know the majority of the legislature and the governor would sign without even reading it, and there's no reason that removing the exemption would make the underlying law any more legal or illegal. The sole purpose for the exemption was to make the underlying law easier to get enough votes to pass. That's done now, so the exemption serves no purpose for them anymore.

I will agree that removing the exemption probably isn't a high priority for them - but that hasn't ever stopped them from passing nonsense legislation before.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 10-04-2019 at 8:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 10-04-2019, 8:59 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
1. I meant for the word loophole to be tongue in cheek, since it's a catch-all phrase politicians use to describe exemptions they don't like.

2. They don't need to explain themselves or make a case, as you already know the majority of the legislature and the governor would sign without even reading it, and there's no reason that removing the exemption would make the underlying law any more legal or illegal. The sole purpose for the exemption was to make the underlying law easier to get enough votes to pass. That's done now, so the exemption serves no purpose for them anymore.

I will agree that removing the exemption probably isn't a high priority for them - but that hasn't ever stopped them from passing nonsense legislation before.
Having established the exemption for individuals holding federal FFL03 and DOJ COE credentials, abolishment of that exemption calls into question the validity of those credentials. That’s a tough argument to make, and seems counter-productive since DOJ is responsible for the COE clearances, and they are used for FFL01 employee clearances and ammo vendor employees. If they aren’t good enough in the private sector, then they aren’t good enough in the commercial sector.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 10-05-2019 at 5:45 AM.. Reason: Speling problums
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:37 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 420
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

^^ re cockedandglocked and Dvrjon's posts

I would love to hear from Sean or anyone at Michel & Assoc, or anyone with actual knowledge regarding the FFL03 / CoE exemption and why it runs through a number of firearms-related laws.

I don't think the CA legislature is including it out of the goodness of it's heart; I don't think it's needed to secure votes for passage (especially in a referendum put before the voters); I do think there is a precedent or more likely a strongly-held view that to fail to include it potentially introduces a fatal flaw in the law.

I can come up with very generic "thoughts" on why the need to include exemptions makes sense where a legislature wants to increase the chance a law is upheld, but those thoughts do not flow from specific research or detailed legal analysis of the issue.
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:43 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post
^^ re cockedandglocked and Dvrjon's posts

I would love to hear from Sean or anyone at Michel & Assoc, or anyone with actual knowledge regarding the FFL03 / CoE exemption and why it runs through a number of firearms-related laws.

I don't think the CA legislature is including it out of the goodness of it's heart; I don't think it's needed to secure votes for passage (especially in a referendum put before the voters); I do think there is a precedent or more likely a strongly-held view that to fail to include it potentially introduces a fatal flaw in the law.

I can come up with very generic "thoughts" on why the need to include exemptions makes sense where a legislature wants to increase the chance a law is upheld, but those thoughts do not flow from specific research or detailed legal analysis of the issue.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. If there is a flaw, answering your question would give the legislature an advance warning regarding what they would have to do to sustain a court challenge.
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:51 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,696
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Having established the exemption for individuals holding federal FFL03 and DOJ COE credentials, abolishment of that exemption calls into question the validity of those credentials. That’s a tough argument to make, and seems counter-productive since DOJ is responsible for the COE clearances, and they are used for FFL01 employee clearances and ammo vendor employees. If they aren’t good enough in the private sector, then they aren’t good enough in the commercial sector.
True

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. If there is a flaw, answering your question would give the legislature an advance warning regarding what they would have to do to sustain a court challenge.
Also true
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 10-08-2019, 1:39 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 420
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. If there is a flaw, answering your question would give the legislature an advance warning regarding what they would have to do to sustain a court challenge.
No interest in "giving ideas" to our legislature, but do you think they include such exemptions because they think it "makes sense" or is "fair" or instead because they know they're creating serious problems if they don't? My view is that they include such exemptions because they already know that they need to do so in order to assist in sustaining the law in the face of a court challenge.
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 10-08-2019, 3:19 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post
No interest in "giving ideas" to our legislature, but do you think they include such exemptions because they think it "makes sense" or is "fair" or instead because they know they're creating serious problems if they don't? My view is that they include such exemptions because they already know that they need to do so in order to assist in sustaining the law in the face of a court challenge.
As I’ve said in the past, the Legislators are smart enough to hire people who understand this stuff. In the case of Prop 63, the Gifford’s organization did the research and writing, and they are very good.

Something to contemplate: The federal government retains authority in, and fully occupies the area of, licensure for firearms in this country. Federal law sets forth the rights of individuals to apply for, and be issued, a federal license (FFL03) for the certain and specific purposes of a Collector of Curios and Relics, which includes functioning firearms and their ammunition.

For state law to withhold the purchase of ammunition from these federal licensees might open the statute to challenge at the federal level for appearing to improperly constrain the federal authorities granted by the license.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 10-08-2019, 3:27 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,696
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
As I’ve said in the past, the Legislators are smart enough to hire people who understand this stuff. In the case of Prop 63, the Gifford’s organization did the research and writing, and they are very good.

Something to contemplate: The federal government retains authority in, and fully occupies the area of, licensure for firearms in this country. Federal law sets forth the rights of individuals to apply for, and be issued, a federal license (FFL03) for the certain and specific purposes of a Collector of Curios and Relics, which includes functioning firearms and their ammunition.

For state law to withhold the purchase of ammunition from these federal licensees might open the statute to challenge at the federal level for appearing to improperly constrain the federal authorities granted by the license.
The additional requirement to also acquire a COE already crosses that line though, no?
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 10-08-2019, 6:03 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The additional requirement to also acquire a COE already crosses that line though, no?
Maybe; maybe not.... The failure to overturn 1-in-30 purchasing rules and 10-day waiting periods may indicate that "reasonable" local (State) controls on eligibility may be appropriate, but outright denial isn't. Example: the FFL03 is issued for 3 years; the COE for one. It may be seen as prudent and reasonable for the state to update eligibility through the COE during the FFL term...but approval of COE simply augments the federal program...it doesn’t preempt it.

Statutes barring FFL03/COE holders from ammo purchasing may constitute preemption of federal authority.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 10-08-2019 at 6:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 10-08-2019, 7:34 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
As I’ve said in the past, the Legislators are smart enough to hire people who understand this stuff. In the case of Prop 63, the Gifford’s organization did the research and writing, and they are very good.

Something to contemplate: The federal government retains authority in, and fully occupies the area of, licensure for firearms in this country. Federal law sets forth the rights of individuals to apply for, and be issued, a federal license (FFL03) for the certain and specific purposes of a Collector of Curios and Relics, which includes functioning firearms and their ammunition.

For state law to withhold the purchase of ammunition from these federal licensees might open the statute to challenge at the federal level for appearing to improperly constrain the federal authorities granted by the license.
Maybe too good by half? Overreach on magazines with capacity of 10+ rounds got them an injunction that had results they never would have had if the existing grandfathered exemption for magazines acquired before the ban was implemented hadn't been replaced with a requirement to dispossess.
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 10-09-2019, 4:36 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 827
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I too would be curious in what original bill and surrounding debate the collector exemption arose from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
As I’ve said in the past, the Legislators are smart enough to hire people who understand this stuff. In the case of Prop 63, the Gifford’s organization did the research and writing, and they are very good.
I disagree with this sentiment, at least at a general level (though you may be right; I'm not going to pretend to be an expert). Sometimes there is a lot of work put in on designing the framework for these programs, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule; or at least with the deluge of gun control bills over the last few years that I've read. Often times legislators seem to take the laziest (and safest) approach and copy-paste sections and definitions wholesale. The most recent case of this is Gipson's Precursor Part Background Check scheme which basically copies the Ammo Background Check scheme wholesale.

I believe this is mostly done with the assumption that someone before them did the necessary research when it was written into law, and so they might as well copy it for their own purposes without having to employ all those really "smart enough" people. This is also why I think we see most of the same exemptions more or less copied to each bill: It's assumed that someone before them did the research in passed law so they include those exemptions in their proposed bills unless it specifically goes counter to what they're proposing. Furthermore I imagine (though I certainly couldn't say for sure) that legislators in committees voting on these bills feel more comfortable with bills that use existing systems, definition, and language rather than whole new and complete frameworks.

As for Giffords... first I would say that I imagine the campaigns and writing of propositions are different than the writing and proposing of bills as due to the different considerations at play. Second... I mean I don't know about them being "very good"... but it does remind me that I was laughing to myself when I found they are defining Exploding Ammunition as Frangible Ammunition (See footnote 106) in their ammunition policy paper. The state laws then referenced after that in footnotes 107-114 (except for Hawaii which may prohibit frangible ammo) more or less exclude frangible ammunition from their exploding ammunition definitions. Also it's funny imagining Giffords fighting against people using frangible ammunition... but I digress.

As for the topic at hand: I'm of the belief that they're more or less copying their predecessors homework because it already exists in law and there's no reason for them to change it at this time. That's may be why we see this FFL03 + CoE exemption pop up repeatedly. The answer to why the exemption exists then most likely lies in the bill that it originated in and the debates surrounding it.

On your other note here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Something to contemplate: The federal government retains authority in, and fully occupies the area of, licensure for firearms in this country. Federal law sets forth the rights of individuals to apply for, and be issued, a federal license (FFL03) for the certain and specific purposes of a Collector of Curios and Relics, which includes functioning firearms and their ammunition.
Collectors are already constrained in the normal process of acquiring C&R firearms as is. It is often an enjoyed privilege of collectors in almost every state to have eligible firearms mailed to their house yet that is not the case in California. There's other things that are heavily constrained when it comes to collectors that aren't quite coming to my tired mind right now.
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 10-10-2019, 8:52 AM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 420
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

My best guess -- and I emphasize that I have done no research and am not a practitioner in this area at all, so take it for what it is worth - is that there's a recognition that firearms-related laws implicate the 2nd amendment. The degree to which they do is obviously hotly contested, but there is an understanding that they do.

Since a constitutional right is implicated, and with a view to some level of scrutiny on a law contested before a court, the legislature (or the activists helping the legislature draft laws) recognize that the ends - (the governmental interest the law purports to advance) - must be tied to the means - (the method by which the law achieves in whole or in part the ends) with at least some care.

In many of the firearm laws, the ends revolve around denying access to certain items to prohibited persons. If access to such items are denied to persons who have affirmatively shown they are not prohibited (via federal and state background checks already completed and kept updated), the "means" of the law looks like an overreach, potentially even under modest levels of scrutiny.

Nothing really insightful here, and nothing but a generalized sense, but I am still curious about the reality of it and the history of it, and feel like there has to be something more substantive behind it like precedent (even if not binding in the 9th) or persuasive arguments made in journals, etc. Anyway, just a curiosity I find interesting.
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 10-10-2019, 3:33 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 694
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post

In many of the firearm laws, the ends revolve around denying access to certain items to prohibited persons. If access to such items are denied to persons who have affirmatively shown they are not prohibited (via federal and state background checks already completed and kept updated), the "means" of the law looks like an overreach, potentially even under modest levels of scrutiny.

Nothing really insightful here, and nothing but a generalized sense, but I am still curious about the reality of it and the history of it, and feel like there has to be something more substantive behind it like precedent (even if not binding in the 9th) or persuasive arguments made in journals, etc. Anyway, just a curiosity I find interesting.
I disagree that legislators in ban states are attempting simply to deny access to prohibited persons. Assault weapons bans effect everyone. California's conveniently certified microstamping law denies access to new pistols to everyone. Restrictive CCW rules in "no-issue" counties deny access to "bear" arms to all who reside in those counties. The new proposed law (sitting on the governor's desk) allowing counties to charge whatever they want to issue CCWs are intended to reduce the number of CCWs issued. Proposed taxes, both state and federal, are designed to reduce access and have an effect on everyone. The culture war in the media and some state legislatures are intended to discourage gun ownership. Gun violence protective order (or "red flag" laws) are designed to increase the class of prohibited persons. In California, they now want to expand the class of persons who can obtain them and to extend their effect from one year to ten, the same as if you had been taken to a mental health facility for evaluation and treatment under a Welfare & Institutions Code section 5150 hold.

No counselor, the plan is to make guns as stigmatized as smoking, and to eliminate the "scourge" of guns in our society under the mistaken belief that somehow this will have an impact on the murder rate. Yes Virginia, there is a conspiracy to take away your guns.

Last edited by TruOil; 10-10-2019 at 3:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 10-10-2019, 4:49 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 420
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I disagree that legislators in ban states are attempting simply to deny access to prohibited persons. Assault weapons bans effect everyone. California's conveniently certified microstamping law denies access to new pistols to everyone. Restrictive CCW rules in "no-issue" counties deny access to "bear" arms to all who reside in those counties. The new proposed law (sitting on the governor's desk) allowing counties to charge whatever they want to issue CCWs are intended to reduce the number of CCWs issued. Proposed taxes, both state and federal, are designed to reduce access and have an effect on everyone. The culture war in the media and some state legislatures are intended to discourage gun ownership. Gun violence protective order (or "red flag" laws) are designed to increase the class of prohibited persons. In California, they now want to expand the class of persons who can obtain them and to extend their effect from one year to ten, the same as if you had been taken to a mental health facility for evaluation and treatment under a Welfare & Institutions Code section 5150 hold.

No counselor, the plan is to make guns as stigmatized as smoking, and to eliminate the "scourge" of guns in our society under the mistaken belief that somehow this will have an impact on the murder rate. Yes Virginia, there is a conspiracy to take away your guns.
I was not speaking to legislators in ban states. I am speaking entirely to CA laws.

That said, I don't disagree with your comments re: stigmatization, nor your contention that there is a concerted effort in regards to the same. I freely acknowledge that there is a clear desire in CA (and elsewhere) among lawmakers to do everything possible to stigmatize and legally limit those who might assert both a right and a policy view that it is a positive message to not discourage firearms ownership, possession, carry, training, etc.

I was merely speaking to the fact that the CA legislature - perhaps one of the most rabid in regards to the above concerns - with a governor-in-waiting that was more aggressive than themselves even, and backed up by activists supporting them - seemed to feel it prudent to include exemptions to the ammo law at issue here.

They didn't include such an exemption in a variety of laws you reference. And, in support of your post, I cannot understand how one logically reconciles an "assault weapons" ban on everyone; a roster of "not unsafe" handguns that applies to all but LEO but permits resale; and the approach to CCW licenses that says "local elected official gets to determine scope of constitutional right." In those instances, different than the law being discussed in this thread, I suspect that they thought they could carry the day with arguments about why complete bans are A-OK; that it happened at a much different time; and that "the times demand it." I don't support those arguments but I can at least make sense of why they might hold up those fig leaves.

I believe there is a reason why the exemption exists in both the ammo law at issue here, and other CA firearms-related laws. And I wonder whether the reason the exemptions do exist is part of the strategy of those who, given the freedom to do so, would ban firearms in all instances. I'd like to better understand what the strategic thinking (on their part) is with regards to the exemptions.
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 10-11-2019, 1:05 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,101
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACfixer View Post
Make that 30,001 as my GF was denied today. Zero criminal or traffic issues ever, CCW holder, 5 handgun owner.
Make that 30,002 since I was denied 2 days ago , went home changed my address and uploaded my California Federal compliant ID on the cfars website, then tried again today and was denied for the second time. Duck hunting season opener it's in a couple of days, I have reservation number 1 on the wild life refuge and no ammo to hunt with.
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!

Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 10-12-2019, 9:19 PM
FatCity67's Avatar
FatCity67 FatCity67 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,954
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
Make that 30,002 since I was denied 2 days ago , went home changed my address and uploaded my California Federal compliant ID on the cfars website, then tried again today and was denied for the second time. Duck hunting season opener it's in a couple of days, I have reservation number 1 on the wild life refuge and no ammo to hunt with.
No Buddies?
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 10-12-2019, 9:38 PM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: backing up into Nevada
Posts: 1,517
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

head over the border or give your location and I am sure someone will drop a few boxes and forget them.
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 6:23 AM.




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.