What "realistically" does CA gun laws look like in 10 years?

[CAL.BAR]

The word "and" in "dangerous and unusual" was not used casually.

"AWs" are more common than Dick Heller's gun, which is the bottom threshold for usualness.

And a comparison on video of a Mini14 rifle with a Mini14 with folder stock and pistol grip will show that "AWness" only revolves around cosmetic features.

Yes, and the CA legislature is already on record as saying that AW's are "dangerous" and fit only for the battlefield. I doubt any court would interpret this holding as requiring both "dangerous" and unusual" in order for 2A to prevent it from being banned. Hell, full auto MG's can be called somewhat common in some free states, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous and the Feds are rather unlikely to overturn the 1934 NFA.

[hoffmang]

Sigh...

A government can claim that all anti Union speech is libel, but that doesn't make it so under First Amendment jurisprudence. So too, the old statements of state legislatures don't matter if they can't actually back it up with facts. The facts are that there are very few unjust homocides where an "AW" was used, crime has fallen in the years after the expiration of the AWB, and the lower limit of "in common use" is Dick Heller's revolver. The AWB doesn't have much chance in the next couple of years.

Remember that California's defense of the Handgun Roster is "well, we can certainly ban half of the arms protected by the 2A." I'm confident that argument will be laughed at at the appropriate appellate level.

McDonald is the end of the beginning. Much of what Bill and I are predicting is already underway. On the hopolophobe side, the only thing left that actually matters is carry. Between Sykes and Palmer, that too shall be won. AWs are a last gasp on the other side. It's awfully handy that SB-23 doesn't even pass rational basis in California.

-Gene

[wash]

SCOTUS said dangerous and unusual. Who cares what the legislature says? When they make an unconstitutional law, it's the court's job to set things right.

[Kharn]

Yes, and the CA legislature is already on record as saying that AW's are "dangerous" and fit only for the battlefield. I doubt any court would interpret this holding as requiring both "dangerous" and unusual" in order for 2A to prevent it from being banned. Hell, full auto MG's can be called somewhat common in some free states, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous and the Feds are rather unlikely to overturn the 1934 NFA.

See Heller:
The Supreme Court does not use 'and' or quotation marks lightly. They've established a test, a weapon must be both 'dangerous' and 'unusual' to be unprotected, and then explains that machine guns are not protected. The positive mention of Miller shows that SBSs are also unprotected. AWs? The latest ATF report (2006) shows approximately (quick scan of it, noting only the manufacturers I recognize), 248k rifles were made by companies that specialize in black rifles (Colt, Bushmaster, RRA, Barrett, Noveske, Sabre, Armalite, etc). For comparison, Sturm Ruger made 196k rifles and Remington made 300k rifles that year. I'd say black rifles are not unusual.

[HunterJim]

I know there is a lot of hope with the SCOTUS decision next year. If you were a bookie, what odds would you put on CCW, Open carry, Still being able to mail order ammo, Getting the AWB in CA gone, Ten round magazine limits and bullet buttons working out for US? I am an eternal optimist, but there are others a lot more knowledgeable about this than I. What do you really think CA gun laws will look like in ten years? I know this is just speculation, but I would really like to think that we would become more free than less free.

I will be ignoring California's laws as I will be living in another state.

...jim

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

The Supreme Court does not use 'and' or quotation marks lightly. They've established a test, a weapon must be both 'dangerous' and 'unusual' to be unprotected....

You realize that "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons" can be read as "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous weapons and unusual weapons" and that Blackstone and 3 of the 4 cases cited after this sentence from Heller say dangerous or unusual? "Dangerous and unusual" isn't a done deal.

Anyways, I wish the "Heller's Buntline revolver is the lower limit or threshold of in common use" argument would go away. There was no evidence or finding of fact in Heller that the particular revolver was in common use. Heller is all about classes or types of arms and you have to dig really deeply to figure out what specific handgun Heller actually applied to register; it's not mentioned anywhere in the trial court's, appeals court's or supreme court's opinions. This is one of those cutesy arguments that detracts from the better arguments and is ultimately useless. No court is ever going to adopt any standard that says a firearm is protected by the 2nd amendment if it as commonly used or more commonly used than Heller's particular revolver.

[wash]

Well, Heller's pistol is a revolver which is a big class and it has ~unusual features like a very long barrel and a 9 shot cylinder (I think).

An AR15 would fall in to the big class of semi-automatic rifles and it has the not so unusual features of a pistol grip, a flash hider and a telescoping stock.

I wonder what banned feature of an "assault weapon" is unusual? Maybe a grenade launcher, oh wait, SKS's all over the country have them...

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Others are using "unusual" in the sense of not in common use, and that's the way I'm reading it too (not that the firearm's particular features are unusual in some cosmetic or mechanical sense).

I don't see there being a lot of litigation about which classes of arms are in common use, but about what regulation within those classes is permitted.

[tiko]

I love this thread and am very optimistic now, thanx.

[hardrivr]

me too

[hoffmang]

Anyways, I wish the "Heller's Buntline revolver is the lower limit or threshold of in common use" argument would go away.

You and every anti-gun Federal judge. Dicta is a two way street. At worst, the answer could not be "a High Standard Buntline Style Revolver" but instead is "Handguns." If that's the rule then I'm comfortable that "Semi Automatic Rifles" are as common as "Handguns."

You continue to remind me that you don't have a lot of litigation experience.

-Gene

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Jerry Brown is an astute politician who does not want to waste his time on losing. Its doubtful he will push for any additional liberties, he is after all a big government kind of guy. He will not waste his energy as governor on losing causes that he really has no stake in.

In reality, the governor has very little say in the whole RTKBA issue. I predict he will let it play out in the courts and the legislature. He will just sign whatever bills the legislature can pass.

Maybe, but that makes the need for speed all the stronger. Whatever we're going to do has to be done before he stops being the AG. Unless, of course, the next AG is just as practical. Getting a pro-gun AG would be wonderful, but I don't expect that.

My guess is somewhere along the way the federal courts are going to tell the sheriffs that they are going to have to rethink their CC issuing practices to be more equitable due to that pesky 14thA, regardless of what the 2A has to say about it. Once the floodgates open, it will become de facto shall-issue, or at least close to it.

It isn't going to be "somewhere along the way." The case has already been filed against Sac'to County. Its on hold pending McDonald, which means it won't take long to get a result once McDonald is final.

I think there is a chance that SCOTUS will decide that LOC is a protected right, but allow CC to be heavily regulated or even prohibited. I think there is an equal chance that they will decide both modes of carry are protected. I also think there is some chance that they will come up with some weasel words that allows states to prevent the actual expression of the right to bear arms in any meaningful way. The template for that is WI where LOC is lawful except inside cars and in school zones, which seems somewhat reasonable to the average on looker who does not carry anyway, until you realize that it completely eliminates any utility in LOC.

I also think that LOC will be defined by SCOTUS as the protected Right (the Minimum Constitutional Standard, as Gene defined it) & that restrictions will be allowed on CCW. But, "separate but equal" won't be allowable post-Incorporation. So, if CCW is allowed at all, issuance will have to be fair. IE; if buddies of the bosses can get a CCW, so will Joe Average.

The situation in WI is a little odd, but keep in mind that what the "average on looker" thinks isn't going to matter. What will matter is what does it look like to a Federal judge (and later, the Circuit Courts)? Since this is now defined as a Civil Right, our model is the 60s. As examples, 'grandfather clauses' & 'literacy tests' were though to be just fine by the crackers Down South (the "average on looker" then). How long did those things last after they were examined by the Federal courts? So, while I've no doubt that the urge to impose limits on LOC (like barring LOC while driving, THE most popular way of getting around) exists, those limits just won't fly.

The same thing applies to acts of the legislature. DC is trying like mad to work around Heller. They're getting shot down at every step. Aside from enriching Gura, they're not accomplishing anything. PRK politicians may not be astute, but they don't like wasting their time either. Once its clear that passing stupid, useless laws only puts money into the pockets of Gura & the like, they'll stop. Which means that JB (if he becomes Gov) just might veto those stupid laws. His practicality will compel him to.

As for how long, I see no reason it should take ten years. The pattern to follow has already been shown to us (back in the 60s). The runners in re where & how to "and bear" have already left the starting gate (Sykes), or are on the back back stretch (Nordyke). All of the Black Rifle stuff will take a little longer, but not all that much longer. Illogical nonsense doesn't fare well when Civil Rights are the subject. Not in the Federal courts it doesn't.

The Raisuli

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

At worst, the answer could not be "a High Standard Buntline Style Revolver" but instead is "Handguns."

Well, that's a little different, isn't it? You don't have to be an anti-gun federal judge or a genius to realize that Heller didn't say it was protecting that specific handgun, it was protecting "handguns."

You continue to remind me that you don't have a lot of litigation experience.

Enough to realize that your last lawsuit was "without legal merit" lol. Must have been another "anti-gun" judge!

What I'm most concerned about is the "I want two-tone" argument in the Pena v Cid case. It's insane to me that 10 days after Nordyke ("Rather than insist on a standard of review at the outset, the Heller court evaluated the regulation at issue against the kind of conduct the Second Amendment protected from infringement," "It does not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self-defense in the home," "[T]he Ordinance does not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes with usable firearms, the core of the right as Heller analyzed it), that someone would claim a second amendment violation because she wanted two-tone instead of the mechanically identical handgun in black. I can't imagine a worse fact pattern or example why elevated scrutiny should apply.

[wash]

The argument isn't "I want two-tone" it's "I want this handgun, why can't I have it?"

The fact that a nearly identical and 100% functionally identical handgun is legal only goes to point out the arbitrary nature of our roster of "not unsafe" handguns.

She's being prohibited from owning the handgun she wants, just like Dick Heller was.

[ilbob]

I also think that LOC will be defined by SCOTUS as the protected Right (the Minimum Constitutional Standard, as Gene defined it) & that restrictions will be allowed on CCW.

I suspect that some of the more liberal judges might prefer guns be hidden out of sight, and so might go for the idea that CC is preferable to OC, and go for both, hoping the average Joe with a gun keeps it under his shirt. Which is probably the way it would shake out if it goes that way.

But, "separate but equal" won't be allowable post-Incorporation. So, if CCW is allowed at all, issuance will have to be fair. IE; if buddies of the bosses can get a CCW, so will Joe Average.

I think it is a much easier case to make that CA CC issuing is in violation of the equal protection clause, than that it is in violation of the 2A. It would not surprise me if a court declined to rule on the 2A side of such a thing and went for the EP argument, since it is so much simpler, and there is no need to deal with whether CC is a protected right or not.

The situation in WI is a little odd, but keep in mind that what the "average on looker" thinks isn't going to matter. What will matter is what does it look like to a Federal judge (and later, the Circuit Courts)? Since this is now defined as a Civil Right, our model is the 60s. As examples, 'grandfather clauses' & 'literacy tests' were though to be just fine by the crackers Down South (the "average on looker" then). How long did those things last after they were examined by the Federal courts? So, while I've no doubt that the urge to impose limits on LOC (like barring LOC while driving, THE most popular way of getting around) exists, those limits just won't fly.

However, the average on looker knew that the purpose of the literacy tests and such was specifically to discriminate against blacks, and the courts have taken a dim view of racial discrimination. Discriminating against everyone OTOH, is something the courts have often tolerated. Look at the unconstitutional practices the courts have allowed such as mass drug tests, drunk driving checkpoints, and the like.