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

[jdogg2000]

I hope you guys are right, you know much more than me about these issues and its nice to see so many people optimistic about the future here.

I feel like so many people here in Cali are "anti-gun" because that's how they were raised. Its probably worse here than in many parts of the country because so many of the legitimate shooting sports have been stigmatized here, ranges closed, etc., that thousands of people grow up thinking guns are just for bad guys and police. I've introduced so many new people to shooting and responsible firearms ownership, but I also have a group of people who I just don't talk to about it because the 30 years of FUD is too much for me to tackle. All we need is somebody in California (or not even here) to do something stupid with an AR or AK and the politicians here could use that to destroy any anti-AWB legislation. Still, I remain hopeful about our future...

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

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.

Unfortunately, we've already seen one analytical framework for second amendment cases, from the "pro-gun" Nordyke panel, that goes about it a different way. Yes it's arbitrary that you can buy a mechanically identical black handgun, but the restricted choice does not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes with usable firearms. There's not even the remotest argument that not being able to purchase the two-tone version of a rostered handgun impedes the efficacy of self-defense in this plaintiff's or anyone else's home, her entire argument really boils down to "I want two-tone." It doesn't get more arbitrary than that. IMO this is an exceptionally weak fact pattern on which to base a second amendment argument. We're are going to see court decisions distinguishing the nature of the right from others such as freedom of speech, privacy, etc., and analyzing regulations in terms of how significantly they burden the exercise of the right. The second amendment doesn't mean you get your preferred color choice, and it remains to be seen what we will end up with when this particular argument is rejected.

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

The difference is that Heller was prohibited from owning a usable handgun for self defense. The make, model, color, were never mentioned in any of the decisions from the trial court to the Supreme Court. Not even Gura framed the argument as one about an individual having an unrestricted choice to pick whatever make, model, or color handgun he or she wants.

[Nodda Duma]

FABIO,

What compelling reason is there to prohibit a two-tone handgun when it is entirely identical to a non-prohibited handgun except in choice of finish?

Why prohibit one when the other is allowed?
Why allow one when the other is prohibited?

When the differences are entirely cosmetic, either allow them all (our choice) or prohibit them all (not our choice). What rational people everywhere want is for the government to base the decisions on some sort of sound logical reasoning, not simply on looks and FUD. The rationale being used now is simply not justifiable, and will be particularly so after the 2nd Amendment is Incorporated.

-Jason

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

No doubt it's irrational and illogical. Whether that makes any difference depends on which analytical standard you're using. If it's "does not meaningfully impede the ability of an individual to defend himself or herself in the home," it isn't going to matter, and you could not have picked a stronger fact pattern to allow a court to go down that road than a plaintiff who wants a gun for no other reason than its color scheme.

[ilbob]

No doubt it's irrational and illogical. Whether that makes any difference depends on which analytical standard you're using. If it's "does not meaningfully impede the ability of an individual to defend himself or herself in the home," it isn't going to matter, and you could not have picked a stronger fact pattern to allow a court to go down that road than a plaintiff who wants a gun for no other reason than its color scheme.

If a reasonable level of scrutiny is applied (maybe strict or intermediate) government is precluded from restricting your rights unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The color of a gun cannot possibly be considered a compelling reason to ban it.

[hill billy]

Well.... for me... in 10 years... I guarantee you that I will be more free.


Either:

A) California will get right and repea some of this crap

or

B) I will be living in a free state.

Sadly, this.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

If a reasonable level of scrutiny is applied (maybe strict or intermediate) government is precluded from restricting your rights unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The color of a gun cannot possibly be considered a compelling reason to ban it.

It sounds like you're saying the courts should jump right to the level of scrutiny and start the analysis from there. And no the color of a gun isn't a good reason to ban something. But we're not really dealing with a color ban. It's a "lacks safety features" regulation that does not prohibit the possession of usable, mechanically identical handguns. If the courts take a "how does this regulation burden the exercise of the right" approach, you may not even get to strict or intermediate scrutiny. I'm not making this up, it already happened in Nordyke, which I think is a good example of a case with not so compelling facts that resulted in some bad language.

[hoffmang]

The difference is that Heller was prohibited from owning a usable handgun for self defense. The make, model, color, were never mentioned in any of the decisions from the trial court to the Supreme Court. Not even Gura framed the argument as one about an individual having an unrestricted choice to pick whatever make, model, or color handgun he or she wants.

Actually, that's exactly what Alan Gura did in DC and the DC government ran away screaming from the argument instead of fighting it.

I repeat that you lack litigation experience.

-Gene

[Mulay El Raisuli]

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.

That might be the way it shakes out. But as long as I don't have to get a permit, either works for me.

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.

That's what I was thinking.

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.

Its not quite that simple. It isn't just racial discrimination that gets them going, but the infringement of civil rights. Also, the checkpoints don't infringe on a Right. I've never heard of a "mass" drug test. Where has this happened?

The Raisuli

[SteveH]

You guys still arguing about that old Scotus case that has not been used to overturn a single california gun law? Give it a rest. Make your prediction as the OP asked and quit your bickering.

[Purple K]

WHAM!!!!!

[Serpentine]

I am a severe optimist. ALL of the gun "control" schemes in this state are based on the fact that the 2A doesn't apply here. IE, they do so because they CAN. That won't be the case after Incorporation, ESPECIALLY if we get P/I Incorporation.

So, ALL gun "control" schemes will then have to be justified in court. And that's FEDERAL court, not the state courts. So, all "California only" things like the AWB, 962, bullet buttons, "safe handgun list," will go bye-bye at the first challenge.

Unrestricted LOC might come as early as June. If not, not long after. There's 25 states that have this already & it doesn't cause a problem there. I see no chance of the PRK justifying the prohibition in front of a Federal court.

CCW will be Shall Issue. "Separate but Equal" doesn't fly in regard to anything else, it won't fly for CCW either.

Further, it won't take ten years for all of this to happen. A properly crafted criminal defense of a defendant we like (or can least tolerate) will overturn this nonsense real quick.

Which leads me to 626.9. The illogic & stupidity inherent in this law we already know. But, just because they can, they did. The good news is that we already have a "pure" defendant to use to strike this down. Theseus isn't a drug dealer. His charge isn't connected to anything but the basic charge. We'll have Incorporation before his case hits the state Supreme Court. That being our Supreme Court, that doesn't bode well for him, but they might follow the Law of the Land. If not, next step is the Federal Courts, where I'm confident that following the Law of the Land will be done. Which means we'll have "sensitive" defined as being on the far side of the metal detectors in a year or two.

The biggest wild card in the deck is our beloved AG, Jerry Brown, who favors Incorporation. If (and that's a big IF), he intends to follow that to its logical conclusion, he won't oppose us on any of this. True, he'll be gone at the end of next year, but he can kill (or by inaction allow to die) most of the unconstitutional nonsense before then. Whether he will or not takes a crystal ball better than what I've got at present. But, I am confident. Even if he's not all that strong for us, he's bright enough to know not to play with a losing hand. So, he might just fold as soon as Incorporation comes our way.

In any event, none of this will take long. We'll be a free state much sooner than ten years.

The Raisuli

I'm totally on board you Mulay! In 12-18 months = Handgun Roster - gone, ammo restrictions - gone, 10 day wait - gone, SBR restrictions - gone, safe or lock requirement for every purchase - gone, HSC card - gone. Multiple behind the scene dealer restrictions - gone. Micro-stamping - gone, etc., etc.

NICS check will remain (as it should be), but done with a phone call - not twenty minutes of paperwork, data entry, printout, $25-$35 dollars, and another $25 for a senseless HSC card.

The 2A will be incorporated as an individual civil right against the states by SCOTUS = ...... "shall not be infringed." Even the 9th circuit court realizes this.

Through the 14th, everyone has equal protection. So what Idaho and Texas has, so goes to every law abiding, qualified, US citizen regardless of what state he lives in. NFA items included through tax stamps (or maybe not), etc.

12-18 months and the US Constitution 2A will mean what it means. All that are against it, especially those that are SWORN to uphold it, are treasonous, tyrannical enemies of the United States of America.

Just because some individual wacko's snap on occasion and shoot people indiscriminately, does not mean that every citizen has to give up his civil right because some politicians say so! If you applied the same logic to airplanes, knives, shovels, automobiles, alcohol and cigarettes, etc, we would eventually end up with no rights or privileges - and a destroyed country.

Just because someone yells FIRE in a crowded theater, doesn't mean the states can put duct tape over your mouth.

Just because some people choose to worship Satanical religions, doesn't mean that the rest of us cannot practice the religion we choose! So goes the 2A!!



.