SCOTUS grants cert in Viramontes v. Cook County_ and _Grant v. Higgins.

[splithoof]

They will do it anyway while it takes another decade (if not longer) in lawsuits to work it's way through the slow turning wheels of the courts. And really, I'm not giving them ideas. This is the old familiar road that's been happening for a long time in that commie state.

The folks who actually benefit from all the delays are those members of the Appellate Industry. Lawyers don’t usually work for free.
I’ve already received two fresh emails from groups asking for $$$ today. It will certainly ramp up.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

If SCOTUS opines that AR-15 in its original manufacturer configuration is protected by 2A, CA AWB goes out of window.

Not necessarily if they limit it to 'original manufacturer configuration.' How many iterations of an AR-15 have been released since? How many 'modifications' are now possible?

All California would have to do is exactly what you indicate, 'understand' SCOTUS as meaning ONLY the 'original manufacturer configuration' and we'd then have to fight that interpretation out in court while we're stuck with...

[splithoof]

Unless they forgot to update the official text on the official web-site
Bill Text: CA AB1948 | 2025-2026 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan

This is where I am seeing that the renewal will be three years, as of today:

https://youtu.be/nCnqR1GE3Tg?si=7yKQnwQa3Er3RKCY

[riderr]

Not necessarily if they limit it to 'original manufacturer configuration.' How many iterations of an AR-15 have been released since? How many 'modifications' are now possible?

All California would have to do is exactly what you indicate, 'understand' SCOTUS as meaning ONLY the 'original manufacturer configuration' and we'd then have to fight that interpretation out in court while we're stuck with...

California will misinterpret it one way or another. However, replacing one part for another does not nullify the 2A, provided we don't cross the NFA (which is horribly unconstitutional). Anyway, we finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

California will misinterpret it one way or another. However, replacing one part for another does not nullify the 2A, provided we don't cross the NFA (which is horribly unconstitutional). Anyway, we finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.

You're missing the point.

You said 'original manufacturer configuration.' That's a limitation I'm sure the State of California would happily interpret to mean a limitation where individuals can ONLY keep and bear an AR-15 if it is in 'original manufacturer configuration,' forcing more litigation.

Your 'does not nullify the 2A' is what would be litigated; i.e., California would claim that SCOTUS had limited ownership to only the 'original manufacturer configuration' and we'd be arguing what you are.

The issue with the light at the end of the tunnel is whether that is the light from the outside at the end of the tunnel or if it is the light from an oncoming train.

[G-forceJunkie]

Queue the “Viramontes response bills” from all the effected lefty states.

Yup. Even if California gets slapped in the face, they will just pass bills declaring all semi autos "assault weapons" and make you register them, control how you store them, how you travel with them, perhaps come up with a yearly registration fee, etc.

[splithoof]

Yup. Even if California gets slapped in the face, they will just pass bills declaring all semi autos "assault weapons" and make you register them, control how you store them, how you travel with them, perhaps come up with a yearly registration fee, etc.

This is an issue I have with Bruen. If a licensing scheme is acceptable for CCW, why can’t it be applied to other arms as well? What about fees for such a license? Terms of said license?…One’s imagination is the only limiter to what these used latex dildos in the legislature will come up with. They want the 9th to bend you over, so the governor can penetrate you at ramming speed.

[abinsinia]

This is an issue I have with Bruen. If a licensing scheme is acceptable for CCW, why can’t it be applied to other arms as well? What about fees for such a license? Terms of said license?…One’s imagination is the only limiter to what these used latex dildos in the legislature will come up with. They want the 9th to bend you over, so the governor can penetrate you at ramming speed.

They explained, in Bruen, the "How" and "Why" have to be the same. So Bruen doesn't say they can have licensing scheme on anything , except concealed carry. That doesn't keep corrupt judges from mis-representing the ruling.

[splithoof]

They explained, in Bruen, the "How" and "Why" have to be the same. So Bruen doesn't say they can have licensing scheme on anything , except concealed carry. That doesn't keep corrupt judges from mis-representing the ruling.

And, dealing with the actions of corrupt judges requires more trips up and down the appellate mountain.

[abinsinia]

And, dealing with the actions of corrupt judges requires more trips up and down the appellate mountain.

That's true regardless of what SCOTUS says. They only way to change that is to impeach the garbage judges, or prevent their confirmation, but neither of those things are happening.

[curtisfong]

The fact that California can defy SCOTUS even after a GVR and then still have a chance of winning if SCOTUS does not take up the literal GVR accountability challenge should give everyone pause.

If SCOTUS is unwilling to enforce their own GVR all bets are off.

[OleCuss]

The fact that California can defy SCOTUS even after a GVR and then still have a chance of winning if SCOTUS does not take up the literal GVR accountability challenge should give everyone pause.

If SCOTUS is unwilling to enforce their own GVR all bets are off.

I don't know of any way that SCOTUS can enforce their GVRs. They send the case back down the line and have to count on the lower courts to take their job seriously.

Unfortunately we have allowed our courts to become the ultimate power in our country. We do not have three equal branches of government. The legislative and executive see themselves as bound to follow the dictates of the courts even if those courts are blatantly violating their oaths and ruling as they wish rather than in accordance with the Constitution and any Constitutionally-compliant laws.

[Sputnik]

I don't know of any way that SCOTUS can enforce their GVRs. They send the case back down the line and have to count on the lower courts to take their job seriously..

They take their jobs very seriously. Of course what we think their job is and what they think their job is isn’t necessarily the same.

[riderr]

You're missing the point.

You said 'original manufacturer configuration.' That's a limitation I'm sure the State of California would happily interpret to mean a limitation where individuals can ONLY keep and bear an AR-15 if it is in 'original manufacturer configuration,' forcing more litigation.

Your 'does not nullify the 2A' is what would be litigated; i.e., California would claim that SCOTUS had limited ownership to only the 'original manufacturer configuration' and we'd be arguing what you are.

The issue with the light at the end of the tunnel is whether that is the light from the outside at the end of the tunnel or if it is the light from an oncoming train.

I see your point, but if you remove the "original configuration" context, CA will argue that AR-15 is allowed in CA, in a modified version. But it's still AR-15, right? Thus, CA doesn't violate 2A. It must be enforced somewhere in the opinion that the manufacturer out-of-the-oven cookie is protected right away.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I see your point, but if you remove the "original configuration" context, CA will argue that AR-15 is allowed in CA, in a modified version. But it's still AR-15, right? Thus, CA doesn't violate 2A. It must be enforced somewhere in the opinion that the manufacturer out-of-the-oven cookie is protected right away.

You're still not, quite, seeing the point.

You're acknowledging that without the 'original manufacturer configuration' language, California is going to play games. I'm pointing out that with the 'original manufacturer configuration' language, California is going to play games.

Either way, California is going to find some way to 'mess' with the language and send things back into the courts to delay/suspend our Constitutional rights.

Let's say I'm dubious we will ever get SCOTUS to include language that ANY configuration of an AR-15 is protected in that too opens another can of worms.

The point I'm making is that proffering language which potentially LIMITS the 2nd Amendment and any configuration of an 'arm' is self-defeating and simply gives the anti-Constitution groups a platform to work from. What they have to do is find language which forces California (and other states) to become increasingly absurd; to the point of being overtly obvious (not just to us, but any reasonable person), that it's not about 'safety,' no matter what the claim(s), and it's actually about stripping citizens of their rights. That's the key. Right now, they can still convince a large enough segment of the public that it's about 'safety' or is primarily so. What you have to do is neuter that type of messaging.