AS I see it only one logical way to attack AWB

[Mitch]

But if a district court (the 9th) and a state (California) continue to ignore the plain rulings (which given Heller - 2A is an individual right, McDonald - it is applicable via the 14th against states and now Caetano - 2A covers all bearable arms, not just ones in existence at the time of founding), the USSC had more or less reached the limits of what it can do to compel compliance. The bad actors continue to act as if none of those rulings exist - the roster remains and a new ban on arms in common use was put in place post Caetano.

That sucks, doesn't it? That happens a lot in life.

At that point does it not fall to the executive to do something like Eisenhower did in Brown v. Board and enforce compliance?

Brown v. Board of Education was a case that prevailed at the Supreme Court. The executive was merely enforcing the decision of the SCOTUS. See? You need a case. The Executive can't simply send troops to the states to enforce its will without judicial backing.

The last time it did that and got away with it was when it rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them in camps. Is that the example we want to follow?

[Jeffersonian]

Trump helping out . . . LOL

[GM4spd]

Looks like a lot of people on here missed Civics class somewhere along the
way.

[ironpegasus]

That sucks, doesn't it? That happens a lot in life.



Brown v. Board of Education was a case that prevailed at the Supreme Court. The executive was merely enforcing the decision of the SCOTUS. See? You need a case. The Executive can't simply send troops to the states to enforce its will without judicial backing.

The last time it did that and got away with it was when it rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them in camps. Is that the example we want to follow?

So you're saying that Caetano (all bearable arms are protected) isn't enough of a ruling to go off of? Certainly between it and Heller's "in common use language", it could easily be inferred that that the state is intentionally violating civil rights. How specific do you need to get before the malfeasance is actionable against? I'm legitimately trying to determine where one would say that the state government has overstepped it's authority in defying the rule of law, not trying to actively get the Fed to overstep their authority.

It seems like under your methodology, we'd have to basically have a roster of "protected" firearms - which would then fall victim to some other BS like requiring a rename of the firearm when you change a part (kinda like the handgun roster certification process now). Which means that every time there's an advance, we'd have to go back to court to protect the new arms, essentially meaning there's no way to enforce compliance by the states.

[Ubermcoupe]

Looks like a lot of people on here missed Civics class somewhere along the
way.

Probably too busy to attend history/gov't with so many STEM classes...

[Mitch]

So you're saying that Caetano (all bearable arms are protected) isn't enough of a ruling to go off of?

Has a Federal court having jurisdiction over California ruled the California AWB is unconstitutional? If so, you can expect the US Justice Department to get involved right away, at least once Trump takes office.

But if that hasn't happened there's nothing the Feds can do.

[Jimi Jah]

Convince a rich CA lawyer here to become a test case? Otherwise it could be decades before any of these laws are challenged in court.

[nedro]

We need a list of the top enemies of this State, so we can focus our attention and collective energy on getting them out of office.

We tried that. We had a list of the enemies. The Government shut it down within three days. Many still have that list. But it cannot be published. CalGuns was one of the first ones to remove the list.
Just more of the same. Protect the criminals from the people! Plain and simple!

[PrestonNorthEnd]

This in "bold" is where this argument is valid. The courts are where the logjam is fouling the Constitution, specifically, the 9th Circuit.

But if a district court (the 9th) and a state (California) continue to ignore the plain rulings (which given Heller - 2A is an individual right, McDonald - it is applicable via the 14th against states and now Caetano - 2A covers all bearable arms, not just ones in existence at the time of founding), the USSC had more or less reached the limits of what it can do to compel compliance. The bad actors continue to act as if none of those rulings exist - the roster remains and a new ban on arms in common use was put in place post Caetano.

At that point does it not fall to the executive to do something like Eisenhower did in Brown v. Board and enforce compliance? Or is California it's own sovereign nation now and capable of dictating its own rules as well as dictating by fiat to the rest of the states in the 9th? There has to be some recourse to states pretending like these rulings do not exist and the courts are not sufficient to the task because they do not (and cannot) work fast enough to overcome the obstructive efforts of the state. The fed in this instance is failing to do the job of defending the enumerated rights of individuals by the states because the courts cannot appropriately address this type of malfeasance - logically then there must be a way for either the executive of the legislature to put an end to this type of bad behavior.

Peruta shows that the 9th isn't completely ignoring Heller or McDonald. The 9th is showing that applying Amendment XIV to Amendment II in California is going to take time. Peruta is, hopefully, going to be heard by the Supreme Court https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....les/16a440.htm. Some form of carry will be allowed in California, at some point (3-5 years).

Whether it's concealed carry (loaded) or open carry (unloaded) is what will be decided by the Supreme Court, and it starts with Peruta.

There will be, however, some hurdles to just walking out the door with your handgun; thanks to Scalia in Heller. One should read his opinion.

Whether we will be able to "keep" a semi-auto assault/battle rifle with a detachable 30-round magazine, pistol-grips, and suppressor (think HK MR556A1) is debatable, again, thanks to Scalia in Heller. Being able to openly "bear" one might never happen in California in my lifetime (hoping I live for another 40 years!).

I also think the now required (in 2018) background checks to purchase ammunition will stay in place. Unfortunately. Firearms too. That said, once the background check is finished and I'm cleared to take possession, any record keeping of the purchase is unconstitutional (Amendment IV).

[H Paul Payne]

Trump has more open Federal judicial appointments than any President in history. The problem is the 9th district court of appeals is so stacked because historically Senators from each state would defer to home state Senators to bless judicial appointments. This was to avoid filibustering of nominees by both side. But thanks to Harry Reid and his "nuclear option" it only takes a simple majority to confirm a nomination. Now Trump can nominate and get confirmed pro 2A judges. With 3-4 open seats in the 9th day one, and 7 Carter Appointments getting close to their expiration date (by natural or other causes) the 9th could be tilted pro 2A. This would avoid the brain damage of having to get to SCOTUS. Judicial appoints are one of the top items on the NRA agenda.

These links might provide some insight to your comments and this discussion:

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/12/29/senator-boxer-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-in-judicial-emergency/

Paul

[DrjonesUSA]

Well here's one start:

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/01/03/liberals-panic-trump-flip-left-leaning-ninth-circuit/

.

[ironpegasus]

Whether it's concealed carry (loaded) or open carry (unloaded) is what will be decided by the Supreme Court, and it starts with Peruta.

Considering that Heller ruled that a functional arm is one that is immediately ready for action and therefore loaded, unless they are going to take a few steps back, I don't see how they could possibly make UOC acceptable unless they are going to pretty much walk back the entire Heller decision.

[PrestonNorthEnd]

Considering that Heller ruled that a functional arm is one that is immediately ready for action and therefore loaded, unless they are going to take a few steps back, I don't see how they could possibly make UOC acceptable unless they are going to pretty much walk back the entire Heller decision.

I agree, but take it a step further.

Heller has already been walked back, by both McDonald (incorporation) and Caetano (you can use more than a 18th century firearm for self-defense and carry it).

But read Scalia's Heller opinion again (sounds like you have). Heller was about the right to keep arms, but Scalia allows for a lot of "hurdles" (my word, but maybe a permit process) in his opinion that make "bearing" arms a chore. It reads like this what you wrote above regarding UOC.

Frankly, if conceal-carry becomes truly achievable in California (it is, but with a major hurdle--essentially imminent threat) that works for me.

But, McDonald is more important than Heller. If Amendment II applies to the States, then California can't legislate the right to keep and bear arms any more than the Feds can (in my opinion, the U.S. Congress shouldn't be, period. Other than the repeal of existing federal gun laws).

[ScottsBad]

Without inside knowledge, I'm betting the NRA and other organizations have Trumps Team on speed dial.

DONATE to the NRA and CRPA.

[Blade Gunner]

These links might provide some insight to your comments and this discussion:

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/12/29/senator-boxer-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-in-judicial-emergency/

Paul

Thanks Paul. Exactly my thoughts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk