Rammifications of Nordyke on Pena???

[Tiberius]

If the roster ever gets in front of the Supreme Court, I don't see how it isn't hosed. The whole roster scheme allows tons of "unsafe" guns into California, and as far as I know, the state testing hasn't caught any of the defects that have led to recalls of various guns over the last few years. This seems to under cut any genuine purpose to it, and merely raising money can't be a good enough purpose - or they'd be taxing verbs.

I don't know if Nordyke is the case, but I do hope the roster is headed to the Supreme Court soon. Perhaps a better resolution would be to try to negotiate something with the state, as CGF did with the Sacramento sheriff. Lengthening the time for re-tests, lowering the "standards", allowing only cosmetically different guns to share the same test results, and so on. Another angle might be broadening the exemption that now allows only LEOs to get non-roster guns. It could be extended, for example, to those with CCWs, or those who take a class allowing them to handle "not certified safe by California" guns. This would allow the state to keep its funky program in place, but would let those of us who really want a Kimber Solo (or whatever) to get one.

[GM4spd]

I sure that will be the courts ruling for ALL the current and near future litigation that is in the pipeline. The games and extreme back bending and knot tieing from the courts and the legislature will keep us in restrictions for years........

This for sure--I have been on this board for 3 years and all I heard over
and over and over was Nordyke,ad nauseum.Well it has gone down and
despite the next step,I doubt very seriously it will go anywhere no matter
how many appeals it has.If we can maintain the staus quo in this state we
will be lucky IMHO. As for a repeal of the AW ban,10 rd mag restriction,and
the roster going away,I can't see it happening. The gains made on the
national level have been noteworthy but after Obama gets 4 more years,
and IF something should happen with the "Supremes" and he gets one more liberal/activist in there, national gun rights will change forever. Pete

[paradox]

I always thought that the best route to attack the roster was from an equal protection argument from the manufacturers point of view. What rational basis does the state have to restrict interstate commerce by banning importation of a Remington 1911 while allowing the sale of Springfield 1911s?

If there was no grandfathering, and all rostered pistols needed lci, mag disconnect, and microstamps, we would have few if any pistols available and thus a defacto ban.

[PatriotnMore]

I always thought that the best route to attack the roster was from an equal protection argument from the manufacturers point of view. What rational basis does the state have to restrict interstate commerce by banning importation of a Remington 1911 while allowing the sale of Springfield 1911s?

If there was no grandfathering, and all rostered pistols needed lci, mag disconnect, and microstamps, we would have few if any pistols available and thus a defacto ban.

If we were dealing with intellectually honest justices, you are correct. What we really are dealing with in the Ninth is, justices with political, or moral convictions who don't like the 2A, but since they can't get rid of it, resort to making their prejudices fit, even in the face of the plain language of the Second and "Shall Not Be Infringed". They are hammering a round peg in a square hole, and presenting it to us as a perfect fit, in their eye.

[CSDGuy]

If the "roster" was so necessary for safety, why then does it not apply to any PPT sales? Why does it not apply to law enforcement when buying personal weapons? Why must a fee be paid to keep the weapons on the list? I would think that once a pistol is found to be not-unsafe, that it's going to stay that way... even if the fees aren't paid.

[Librarian]

If the "roster" was so necessary for safety, why then does it not apply to any PPT sales? Why does it not apply to law enforcement when buying personal weapons? Why must a fee be paid to keep the weapons on the list? I would think that once a pistol is found to be not-unsafe, that it's going to stay that way... even if the fees aren't paid.

All perfectly sensible questions - I think the only good one you missed was 'if the guns are supposed to be unsafe, why are we putting the public at risk by allowing LEO to use off-Roster guns?' - and all go to show that the Roster really has no connection with safety at all.

[Scarecrow Repair]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Again this never has made any sense at all to me. No where does it say "Except for" or "For self defense". It does say "Shall not be infringed" and that's all that happens is one infringement after another.

You make the same mistake so many people make from lack of thinking.

Do you think mental cases should have the RKBA? How about convicted prisoners serving their sentence? How about during an arrest? How about those on trial, during the trial, in the courtroom? If you answer NO to any of those, congratulations, you have just infringed the RKBA.

Define "keep". I believe quite a few colonies and towns required all powder over a certain small amount be kept in a town magazine or armory to avoid the danger it imposed in case of fire. Is that an infringement in your eyes?

Define "arms". There are some people who say that includes nuclear weapons. Merchants up until probably the mid-1800s used to have cannon on their ships.

There is a whole lot of wiggle room in that simple phrase, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you are going to do nothing but rant about it, without acknowledging that wiggle room, you are doing noting useful.

[IPSICK]

You make the same mistake so many people make from lack of thinking.

Do you think mental cases should have the RKBA? How about convicted prisoners serving their sentence? How about during an arrest? How about those on trial, during the trial, in the courtroom? If you answer NO to any of those, congratulations, you have just infringed the RKBA.

Define "keep". I believe quite a few colonies and towns required all powder over a certain small amount be kept in a town magazine or armory to avoid the danger it imposed in case of fire. Is that an infringement in your eyes?

Define "arms". There are some people who say that includes nuclear weapons. Merchants up until probably the mid-1800s used to have cannon on their ships.

There is a whole lot of wiggle room in that simple phrase, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you are going to do nothing but rant about it, without acknowledging that wiggle room, you are doing noting useful.

All very good points and the analyses for the 2nd have made me re-examine my own interpretation. For myself I break it into two parts.

1st: A well regulated militia, being necessary for a free state...

I interpret this to mean well-trained and versed in the basics of combat and defense. Because it says 'regulated', I take this to mean that government (local, state, or federal) must provide or allow means to train its people for response in defense of the State (USA). This can be done with mandatory participation in basic training for all citizens.

2nd: ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

This has minimal amounts of wiggle room from the perspective of keeping small arms such as rifles, pistols, and shotguns as used by the military (which includes sporting/hunting guns because they are typically based on military designs). The famous US v. Miller case which preceded Heller even ignored the fact that the shotguns in question were used in the military while at the same time that the 2nd Am protected arms used in the military.

As for large arms like nuclear weapons and tanks as compared to cannons, these could be kept in a common armory as maintained and checked by the people which would mean the government. As far as I know cannons on merchant ships, were only allowed for merchants with government charters.

Finally, tying it back to our beautiful roster the 2nd part of my argument negates it because of the statement shall not be infringed.

This is all of course my $0.02 and it is probably worth even less than that but it is just my re-examination of the 2nd.

[navyinrwanda]

The key word here is "if" and we're not there. There is no ban on possession or use of rostered or non-rostered handguns, the roster does not burden anyone's exercise of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Tons of functional, effective handguns on the roster. Weak argument for substantial burden.