CA Handgun-Free

[MrPlink]

the problem is that the SCOTUS has not determined what level of scrutiny the 2nd amendment holds when determining if the law is unconstitutional

if strict scrutiny the law must be necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose.

if intermediate scrutiny then the law must be substantially related to an important government purpose

if rational basis the only has to be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

so the real question is what level of purpose does the government have to ban the sale of new "unsafe handguns" into the stream of commerce.

is no new unsafe handguns a compelling government purpose to promote safety, is it important, or is it only legitimate...

it will absolutely pass rationally related but there is little to no chance that a 2nd amendment will only be a rational basis test so the question is if it is strict scrutiny or intermediate. the trend shows to be that it would be strict because it is a fundamental liberty. which means that the banning of new unsafe handguns must be necessary and there is no less restrictive means and the law is narrowly tailored to the point that public safety is endangered enough that the government is compelled to restrict it.

that is the standard the handgun roster must endure to determine if your rights are infringed or not.. if compelling under strict scrutiny, then they are not infringed...

none of this has been through the supreme court yet.... 2nd amendment bans and restive laws are pretty new in the eyes of the Supreme court. My guess is that it would not pass strict scrutiny and highly doubtful that it would pass intermediate even

The moderates will argue that a fundamental right is not being infringed, only regulated under the 10A.

There's no doubt it would not survive strict scrutiny, but I'm also not 100% sure 5 justices would believe that it was triggered.

[flyer898]

I wonder if instead of attacking the roster under the 2nd Amendment there was a suit challenge the burden on interstate commerce under the commerce clause, what would happen? I have not done any research and I am just thinking out loud at the moment.

[miket92]

I wonder if instead of attacking the roster under the 2nd Amendment there was a suit challenge the burden on interstate commerce under the commerce clause, what would happen? I have not done any research and I am just thinking out loud at the moment.

Does the roster prohibit companies from selling their goods entirely though? The thing is that any gun mfg can sell their handguns in CA if they pass all the safety requirements, right? Then it comes down to whether or not certain mfgs WANT to sell their products in CA (or want to pay to have their guns on the CA market)...correct me if Im wrong.

[MrPlink]

I wonder if instead of attacking the roster under the 2nd Amendment there was a suit challenge the burden on interstate commerce under the commerce clause, what would happen? I have not done any research and I am just thinking out loud at the moment.

And who would have standing to bring that suit?

[GOLDEN GUN]

I wonder if instead of attacking the roster under the 2nd Amendment there was a suit challenge the burden on interstate commerce under the commerce clause, what would happen? I have not done any research and I am just thinking out loud at the moment.

Does the roster prohibit companies from selling their goods entirely though? The thing is that any gun mfg can sell their handguns in CA if they pass all the safety requirements, right? Then it comes down to whether or not certain mfgs WANT to sell their products in CA (or want to pay to have their guns on the CA market)...correct me if Im wrong.

And who would have standing to bring that suit?

Many one who had an opportunity to purchase an off roster handgun but could not.. Meaning you have to convince the FFL to send the dros anyways to get denied by a government actor will have standing..

The restriction may not be enough now but when virtually all handguns are off the roster then our right to Bears arms is definatly restricted and the roster itself will go through the scrutiny... Is the safety provided by having only safe handguns in our state neccessary to achieve the compelling purpose. And is it the least restrictive means of achieving that purpose

[zerodameaon]

Does the roster prohibit companies from selling their goods entirely though? The thing is that any gun mfg can sell their handguns in CA if they pass all the safety requirements, right? Then it comes down to whether or not certain mfgs WANT to sell their products in CA (or want to pay to have their guns on the CA market)...correct me if Im wrong.

If the technology to be allowed to sell their products in the state does not exist a prohibition of sale of their product exists. Its like saying cars are still legal in California but they can only be on our roads if they harness the power of the nearest black hole(not including Feinstein).

[MrPlink]

Many one who had an opportunity to purchase an off roster handgun but could not.. Meaning you have to convince the FFL to send the dros anyways to get denied by a government actor will have standing..
that would not give an individual standing to challenge under CC. My response was something of a trick question. Ask yourself, who does the power to regulate interstate commerce belong to? Is the safe handgun roster an exercise of that power?
The restriction may not be enough now but when virtually all handguns are off the roster then our right to Bears arms is definatly restricted and the roster itself will go through the scrutiny... Is the safety provided by having only safe handguns in our state neccessary to achieve the compelling purpose. And is it the least restrictive means of achieving that purposeYeah I have 3 semester of Con Law under my belt too.. Again I'm not saying that can't be how the issue presented (should it ever be) but rather we don't know how it will be, and ultimately how the court will want review the issue. We aren't close enough to being heard by SCOTUS to make an educated guess. And even if we were, it sounds like you should know well enough that they are many things but predictable when it comes to extremely contentious issues. They very well could take a different approach or invent a new test etc etc

Response in bold

[chris]

Only thing is, if the MFGs all pulled out then it wouldn't really be a constitutional issue at that point, right? I think our Cali gov wouldn't mind all the MFGs pulling out of Cali..that would just boost their agenda in a direction that we don't want it to go...

the gov. would care if the MFG's did what Barrett did and not fix one Barrett rifle in the state that LE had in it's inventory.

LE unions would be pissed that their officers guns wouldn't be repaired by MFG if under warranty or required MFG repair.

[miket92]

the gov. would care if the MFG's did what Barrett did and not fix one Barrett rifle in the state that LE had in it's inventory.

LE unions would be pissed that their officers guns wouldn't be repaired by MFG if under warranty or required MFG repair.

I guess...what do you think the chances are of all the mfgs coming together and doing something like that to get rid of the roster though?

[titan2]

Does the roster prohibit companies from selling their goods entirely though? The thing is that any gun mfg can sell their handguns in CA if they pass all the safety requirements, right? Then it comes down to whether or not certain mfgs WANT to sell their products in CA (or want to pay to have their guns on the CA market)...correct me if Im wrong.

You're wrong.....the new requirement for 'Micro Stamping' new hand guns have nothing to do with 'SAFETY'! It's about control. None of the major companies will even consider micro stamping...even the creator of it says it needs more work!!! The attorney general says that since it is available for use, it must now be used on all new handguns sold in California. And that really means that as it now stands, there will be NO new hand guns offered in California. Only handguns available are already on roster and they must renewed every so often with the applicable fees paid to the state. The manufacturers are starting to say that they've had enough and are not renewing the handguns that they have on the roster and thus the roster is getting pretty bare!!!

[Full Clip]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it also seems fishy that microstamping is a patented technology controlled by one company — Nanomark — meaning the law will essentially serve to make them rich. So, who in CA state politics owns a part of that? Follow the money...

[The Last American Hero]

Handguns are illegal for civilians in Mexico.

CA is becoming Mexican.

Therefor, handguns will be illegal in CA.

Even today, Mexicans are beginning to move out of CA for the exact same reasons they left Mexico....its full of Mexicans and they don't like that.


While the Mexican debacle shows that making guns illegal doesn't reduce crime, and seems to only increase it unimaginable levels, a biologist or Man From Mars would conclude that "whatever they are doing sure seems to be working" since they are rapidly expanding.

[zerodameaon]

While the Mexican debacle shows that making guns illegal doesn't reduce crime, and seems to only increase it unimaginable levels,

Oh like Jamaica? I have brought up the situation down there to antis before and they demand I show proof. Then suddenly when I do these otherwise model hippies become very racist and insist its only because the color of their skin and could not happen here.

[miket92]

You're wrong.....the new requirement for 'Micro Stamping' new hand guns have nothing to do with 'SAFETY'! It's about control. None of the major companies will even consider micro stamping...even the creator of it says it needs more work!!! The attorney general says that since it is available for use, it must now be used on all new handguns sold in California. And that really means that as it now stands, there will be NO new hand guns offered in California. Only handguns available are already on roster and they must renewed every so often with the applicable fees paid to the state. The manufacturers are starting to say that they've had enough and are not renewing the handguns that they have on the roster and thus the roster is getting pretty bare!!!

So then, CA will eventually not have any handguns left on the roster if MFGs are fed up and stop renewing...so my question is when does the roster become something so obviously unconstitutional that something will change or that the roster will be done away with? Oddly enough, there are people out there who support having a roster (a lot of whom hold significant political positions) so whose to say when the roster will be done away with if those people aren't against it, right?

[The Last American Hero]

Oh like Jamaica? I have brought up the situation down there to antis before and they demand I show proof. Then suddenly when I do these otherwise model hippies become very racist and insist its only because the color of their skin and could not happen here.

I hear that while (at least on paper) the gun murder rate in the UK is low, the criminals are totally brazen.

Thugs will bust into some little old lady's home in broad daylight not even caring she is obviously home and awake, and ransack the joint like hungry bears or zombies.

Like those famous NYC subway muggings where in a car full of 100 "normal" folks the muggers will pick out one and everyone else will stare blankly away doing nothing as the muggers ply their trade.