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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-12-2008, 8:34 PM
outersquare's Avatar
outersquare outersquare is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: sokali
Posts: 255
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default does the hicap ban violate 14th amendment?

IANAL
but it seems to me this "grandfathering" of possession, which is basically a property right, violates the equal protection clause.
__________________

Lifetime Member
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-12-2008, 8:39 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,812
iTrader: 113 / 100%
Default

so does the grandfathering of registered MG's in CA, AW's, DD's (striker12 anyone?), the 1968 GCA, the 1934 NFA, the 1984 FOPA, and a number of other fun little tidbits.

Just because you are technically 'within your rights' doesn't mean you won't go to the 'pokey' for it.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-12-2008, 8:52 PM
bluestaterebel's Avatar
bluestaterebel bluestaterebel is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Near Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 3,068
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

pokey?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Z50 View Post
Since your myopic view is in concurrence with your cognizant lifespan on this planet, obviously less than 20 years, I will grant you a dispensation.

Figure that out and exercise your mind.....
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-12-2008, 8:54 PM
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Pre Heller my answer would have been "maybe."

Post a pro-rights win in Heller, the answer is most likely but it's not a slam dunk case.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-12-2008, 8:54 PM
jerryg1776's Avatar
jerryg1776 jerryg1776 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chula Vista
Posts: 1,063
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestaterebel View Post
pokey?
Thats the place with bars where they "pokey" you....
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-12-2008, 8:55 PM
Wulf Wulf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Of course if you are dead or dying, violating the mag law will be the least of your worries. And since there's no law broken by the person receiving the mags, passing them on to your survivors would seem to be legal in practice if not in fact.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-12-2008, 9:02 PM
Shane916 Shane916 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

California doesn't recognize the United States Constitution It is merely a suggestion
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-12-2008, 11:46 PM
mymonkeyman mymonkeyman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,050
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outersquare View Post
IANAL
but it seems to me this "grandfathering" of possession, which is basically a property right, violates the equal protection clause.
Because large-capacity gun owners isn't a class defined by race or sex, it will receive only rational basis review. This is also informally called rubber-stamp review, and simply requires some non-arbitrary reason for the legislation (does not necessarily have to be the reason the legislature had in mine when passing the statute). One could be that they wanted to avoid an arguable due process violation for a taking without compensation and they wanted to save money for compensation (although that probably would get looked at funny because generally banning chattels is not a takings violation - which is why there is no grandfather clause for drug possession). Another might be to avoid hurting vested interests, to avoid the costs of the police accepting the banned goods (i.e. general administrability / efficiency reasons), etc. Basically, with something like this, a court isn't going to find an equal protection violation. Look at Kasler, something which had a bit more of a plausible argument wrt equal protection, but the antis won.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-13-2008, 11:21 AM
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Kasler was missing a fundamental right to arms. The equal protection claims one would make regarding large capacity magazines would be as against LEO's, FFLS and armored vehicle services and the core question presented would be why they get to exercise their fundamental rights to keep and bear arms in a way different than the rest of us.

On intermediate scrutiny, this might be a losing argument. Under strict scrutiny its a winner. Either way, I doubt rational basis will be the test of such a closely related issue to keeping and bearing when the core right is both fundamental and incorporated. Here in the 9th, I can see an attempt to use intermediate scrutiny, but I think the 14th amendment analogs are going to be hard to defend for the argument that intermediate scrutiny is acceptable.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-13-2008, 12:46 PM
Pokey's Avatar
Pokey Pokey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: My house
Posts: 496
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
so does the grandfathering of registered MG's in CA, AW's, DD's (striker12 anyone?), the 1968 GCA, the 1934 NFA, the 1984 FOPA, and a number of other fun little tidbits.

Just because you are technically 'within your rights' doesn't mean you won't go to the 'pokey' for it.
Hey, lets just leave me outta this......
__________________
Pokey
Chivalry is not dead! Its just that now when a man puts his coat down for a woman, its to keep her from getting her back wet.

"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."

In tribute to Blackwater Ops
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-13-2008, 12:57 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,469
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane916 View Post
California doesn't recognize the United States Constitution It is merely a suggestion
your kidding right? they pay attention to it like they pay attention to how much money they spend

it's merely a guidline that gets in the way of total control and a disarmed state.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-13-2008, 1:05 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,641
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

If everyone always had to have equal property rights, a whole lot of things would be beyond regulation. That guy who owns and has registered a 1970 Buick, why does he have the right to drive a car that pollutes ten times as much as my new Prius? Or someone who built a house: why does someone who built 50 years ago have a right to a house which I can't build today because the building codes have changed? There are many examples of this. It would be nearly impossible to regulate anything if they couldn't "grandfather" things.

I'm hoping that we'll fix the mag ban with some help from Heller.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-13-2008, 1:52 PM
mymonkeyman mymonkeyman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,050
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Kasler was missing a fundamental right to arms. The equal protection claims one would make regarding large capacity magazines would be as against LEO's, FFLS and armored vehicle services and the core question presented would be why they get to exercise their fundamental rights to keep and bear arms in a way different than the rest of us.

On intermediate scrutiny, this might be a losing argument. Under strict scrutiny its a winner. Either way, I doubt rational basis will be the test of such a closely related issue to keeping and bearing when the core right is both fundamental and incorporated. Here in the 9th, I can see an attempt to use intermediate scrutiny, but I think the 14th amendment analogs are going to be hard to defend for the argument that intermediate scrutiny is acceptable.

-Gene
Yes, post Heller, everything is different. However, it would not be likely phrased in the terms of an equal protection argument.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-13-2008, 1:56 PM
SKG19 SKG19 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 378
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
That guy who owns and has registered a 1970 Buick, why does he have the right to drive a car that pollutes ten times as much as my new Prius?
Not a good example...It's not unlawful for the dude with a Prius to purchase a 1970 Buick, Nor is it unlawful for the dude with the Buick to get a Prius. Since it's not against the law to own a car the pollutes '10 times' more than a Prius...it doesn't really matter.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-13-2008, 2:28 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
If everyone always had to have equal property rights, a whole lot of things would be beyond regulation. That guy who owns and has registered a 1970 Buick, why does he have the right to drive a car that pollutes ten times as much as my new Prius? Or someone who built a house: why does someone who built 50 years ago have a right to a house which I can't build today because the building codes have changed? There are many examples of this. It would be nearly impossible to regulate anything if they couldn't "grandfather" things.
And the problem with not being able to regulate is....?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-13-2008, 2:45 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,641
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin2 View Post
And the problem with not being able to regulate is....?
I think there's too much regulation these days, but some level of regulation is a legitimate government activity. The federal government has the constitutional power of regulating interstate commerce, and states have their own regulatory powers.

Going back to firearms, if it were in my power I would sweep away the bulk of firearms regulations of recent decades, both state and federal. But no one has put me in charge of that, unfortunately.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-13-2008, 2:49 PM
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mymonkeyman View Post
Yes, post Heller, everything is different. However, it would not be likely phrased in the terms of an equal protection argument.
Why wouldn't one phrase it as an equal protection case?

It would seem the cause of action would only be dependent on one's strategy in the 9th circuit - not what would be the "usual" cause of action. Equal protection claims regarding the exceptions to California weapons laws have been the few that have worked. See Silveira and its incorrect strike of the retired LEO exemption.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-13-2008, 5:40 PM
stevepsd stevepsd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 63
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane916 View Post
California doesn't recognize the United States Constitution It is merely a suggestion
Not entirely true.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.


See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3


This seems to imply that the state recognizes the US Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-13-2008, 8:24 PM
FallingDown's Avatar
FallingDown FallingDown is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Docked and blockaded in socialist waters until the summer 08'
Posts: 435
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Reminds me of Medical Marijuana and santuary cities

LOL - sounds to me, that the implication is California is pulling the old "what ya going to do about it" attitude, given the majority of the population is indifferent to or anti 2A.

I'd venture to say balkanization is already here, so will Redding be the next Kosovo? LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Pre Heller my answer would have been "maybe."

Post a pro-rights win in Heller, the answer is most likely but it's not a slam dunk case.

-Gene
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-13-2008, 8:28 PM
Shane916 Shane916 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
your kidding right?
Indeed I am

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevepsd View Post
Not entirely true.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.


See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3


This seems to imply that the state recognizes the US Constitution.
Indeed I am kidding once again

Purely

Last edited by Shane916; 02-13-2008 at 8:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-13-2008, 8:28 PM
FallingDown's Avatar
FallingDown FallingDown is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Docked and blockaded in socialist waters until the summer 08'
Posts: 435
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Badges? We don't need no stinking badges

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane916 View Post
California doesn't recognize the United States Constitution It is merely a suggestion
Elizabeth Swan "What about the code?"

Captain Barbossa "It's more like guidelines"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-14-2008, 7:36 AM
mblat mblat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,257
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevepsd View Post
Not entirely true.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.


See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3


This seems to imply that the state recognizes the US Constitution.

Then what is with ".....right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

It is newspeak. State SAYS it recognizes COTUS, but in reality it couldn't care less.
__________________
Quote:
The essence of Western civilization is the Magna Carta, not the Magna Mac. The fact that non-Westerners may bite into the later has no implications for their accepting the former.
S.P. Huntington.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-14-2008, 9:17 AM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,578
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat View Post
Then what is with ".....right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

It is newspeak. State SAYS it recognizes COTUS, but in reality it couldn't care less.
Well I agree those who run the state couldn't care less and "sanctuary cities" are an excellent example of that. But I think their painting with a broad brush answer regarding guns would be that we have thousands of licensed dealers to choose from and access to hundreds (maybe +1,000?) of models of guns including "military style" semi auto rifles. And most people who don't know any better would say that's fine. We of course can be specific and accurate and point out otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-14-2008, 9:39 AM
Jason762 Jason762 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oakland-ish
Posts: 1,717
iTrader: 38 / 98%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane916 View Post
California doesn't recognize the United States Constitution It is merely a suggestion
Yeah, just like stoplights are merely suggestions to drivers!
__________________
Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general - Mark Rippetoe
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-14-2008, 10:44 AM
xenophobe's Avatar
xenophobe xenophobe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SF Peninsula/South Bay Area
Posts: 7,075
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Pre Heller my answer would have been "maybe."

Post a pro-rights win in Heller, the answer is most likely but it's not a slam dunk case.

-Gene
The decision of the DC Appellate Court insinuates that it might, but was beyond the scope of the questions it was asked to answer. If Heller v. US is ruled in our favor it might be addressed more specifically, but overall, until it is incorporated, the answer would be no, because SCOTUS has never been specifically asked to answer this question directly.

Technically, if you look at the original draft of the 14th Amendment and the history behind it, remove all of the Civil Rights Act history which was combined into the document that became the 14th Amendment, then the answer would definitely be yes.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-14-2008, 11:18 AM
FreedomIsNotFree's Avatar
FreedomIsNotFree FreedomIsNotFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,652
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FallingDown View Post
LOL - sounds to me, that the implication is California is pulling the old "what ya going to do about it" attitude, given the majority of the population is indifferent to or anti 2A.

I'd venture to say balkanization is already here, so will Redding be the next Kosovo? LOL
It may sound funny, but it isn't. The tactics that are being used to take Kosovo from Serbia may be used to take southern California from us. Unregulated immigration coupled with high birth rates...etc..etc. As we see the demographics change over the next 10 years or so, we will see folks calling for "autonomy".

I think Redding is safe, but San Diego may not be.
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
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 9:30 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.