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

[Brown Rock]

Say this thing goes our way, what happens to the assault weapons registry?

[splithoof]

Say this thing goes our way, what happens to the assault weapons registry?

I don’t know for sure, but I can envision Bonta releasing all the data as a public, historic record. IMO he intentionally released all that CCW data some time ago, in a deliberate attempt to create problems for so those licensed. What the various media outlets might do with that is anyone’s guess. I personally know one member of the media (a writer for a major news publication here in So Cal) who was working on a special interactive project that used that CCW data as the basis for the project. Thankfully that person lost their job due to editorial staff cuts.
The state of California is IMO an evil empire run by communists. They take pleasure in subjugating the citizenry at every turn. This is no different.

[tamalpias]

I have friends who were not old enough to buy AR type rifles before they were banned and is itching to get into them. I can't wait to possibly even pick up a couple myself and I already have a few. 😊

[Batman]

Is this sort of like when California made us register bullet-button AR's as Assault Weapons, but then insisted that we keep the bullet button on?

There's a company now that's offering an AR with a factory forced reset trigger. Would that then fly, as it's in original factory condition, and doesn't increase firing speed from stock?

The one good thing is that the decision will come out after the midterms, and Trump will still be POTUS.

[G-forceJunkie]

Is this sort of like when California made us register bullet-button AR's as Assault Weapons, but then insisted that we keep the bullet button on?

There's a company now that's offering an AR with a factory forced reset trigger. Would that then fly, as it's in original factory condition, and doesn't increase firing speed from stock?

The one good thing is that the decision will come out after the midterms, and Trump will still be POTUS.

No, California has seperate laws banning "trigger accuators". You can thank the guys selling Hellfire accuators in the 90's for that. It basically was a spring that pressed behind the trigger so you could bump fire it easier.

[Silence Dogood]

Yup, there’s a sticky about the “multiburst trigger activator” ban in the Semi-auto Rifle forum. It used to be PC 12020 but it is now PC 16930. Last year, AG Bonta released a statement that FRTs are included. You’ll find it here: https://archive.is/GoUvZ

[riderr]

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.

Not sure why it's so complicated. SCOTUS well can opine that no state may limit the Constitution of the United States by imposing any state-level restrictions on the firearms protected by the 2A. 2A equally applies everywhere in the U.S.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Not sure why it's so complicated. SCOTUS well can opine that no state may limit the Constitution of the United States by imposing any state-level restrictions on the firearms protected by the 2A. 2A equally applies everywhere in the U.S.

The problem begins with how "limit" will be defined.

Will it be a limitation as Scalia viewed it; i.e., as one which actually existed at the time the Constitution was ratified?

Will it be a limitation as "Living Constitutionalists" define it; i.e., one which limits their ability to 'interpret' things based on how they view the times they live in?

Or, will it be something in between?

The next question, which is the one being addressed as we speak, is what firearms are actually protected by the 2nd Amendment? Why do you think we have lawsuits related to automatic weapons, so-called 'assault weapons,' magazine capacity and whether the magazines are considered an arm or part of an arm, Glock switches, et al.? They didn't exist at the time of the Founding. It was something Scalia actually addressed in Heller when he responded to the dissent saying that we don't interpret Constitutional rights that way...

...Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding...

Yet, he then turned around and stated...

... We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”...

Remember, the game, as it is currently played, is to demand clarification in court before a state will act, not as it chooses, but as the Federal Government dictates. The problem is, until the Federal Courts declare that the Federal Government encompasses the entire field on the issue, the Federal Government can't necessarily simply declare that "THIS" is how something is defined and, therefore, you WILL follow... It's exactly what McDonald was about in 2010, incorporating the understanding of the majority in Heller to the states. Up until that point, the states were not obligated to adhere to Heller. It took McDonald to bind state and local governments to the Heller decision.

This is an inherent problem we've had with the Constitution itself and one of the primary issues underlying many of the criticisms of it. As much as we like to say that "the Constitution says...," the truth is that so much was left undeclared by the Founders that those who would strip us of what we perceive of as our Constitutional rights have 'taken advantage' and cried that the Founders never made plain what their intent was. This is why even Scalia told Chris Wallace, post-Heller, that future 2nd Amendment litigation on specific issues such as 'carry' would have to be decided 'very carefully.' Of course, Scalia's preference was tied to Originalism/Textualism. But, as has been discussed, there are numerous ways to define even those two theories and that doesn't include the other legal theories, some of which the other Justices operate under.

Of course, that's without even noting the 'political complications' which are evidenced by the cries of 'foul' against the Conservative change on the Court and the decisions they are rendering. Bear in mind that the Constitution only works so long as We the People voluntarily comply. It's the reason 'voluntary compliance' is often talked about in reference to taxes. It was actually the basis of the Civil War in that the Confederacy decided it no longer wished to comply with how the Federal Government was interpreting, then acting on the Constitution.

A similar mindset still holds true today when it comes to the powers of individual states vs. the Federal Constitution and the interpretation thereof. While a state cannot overtly violate a Supreme Court ruling, the question will become whether the Supreme Court has definitively ruled on the issue. It's referred to as the "Silence Factor" - When the U.S. Supreme Court has not spoken on an issue, the text of the Constitution itself still governs and since state officials take an oath to uphold the federal Constitution, standard legal interpretation must be applied until the U.S. Supreme Court provides a definitive. That returns us to what I originally asked; i.e., what is the 'standard legal interpretation?'

It's the very reason many criticize the U.S. legal system and it's the 'game' lawyers and judges have made of it, usually perpetuating their own reason for existence. In some respects, it highlights the diversity that is an hallmark of the U.S. In other respects, it underlies one of the criticisms of the Constitution as being unable to 'govern' such a large and diverse population. An oversimplified example is the rural-urban divide in this country. In many cases, the two interests are unresolvable in their differences. Yet, both must abide by how the Constitution is interpreted and which interpretation holds precedence becomes the key question.

As yet another example, you may want to note a thread currently running in the California section... Can California simply Defy Federal Law indefinitely?

[OleCuss]

Mark Smith on his YouTube "Four Boxes Diner" channel pointed out something which may explain why the two AR-15 cases were consolidated and given cert.

The reason is that if you combine the two cases then if a state got smart and rather than have a strong ruling against states banning semi-automatic rifles they could repeal the law and moot the case. Then the next day they can pass a slightly tweaked law and it could be years before the SCOTUS addressed the issue. It is much more difficult for two states to coordinate doing that together and politically it doesn't work if one state moots when the other didn't.

So we have a consolidated case which likely not be mooted.

I think that doing AR-15 bans makes it easier to rule broadly/effectively than would be the case with the magazine bans. But it may also be that the magazine bans would be more difficult to consolidate?

[riderr]

The problem begins with how "limit" will be defined.

Will it be a limitation as Scalia viewed it; i.e., as one which actually existed at the time the Constitution was ratified?

Will it be a limitation as "Living Constitutionalists" define it; i.e., one which limits their ability to 'interpret' things based on how they view the times they live in?

Or, will it be something in between?

We will see it in less than a year. Meanwhile, I would be happy if the states were prohibited to apply ANY limits overreaching the federal laws.

The next question, which is the one being addressed as we speak, is what firearms are actually protected by the 2nd Amendment? Why do you think we have lawsuits related to automatic weapons, so-called 'assault weapons,' magazine capacity and whether the magazines are considered an arm or part of an arm, Glock switches, et al.? They didn't exist at the time of the Founding. It was something Scalia actually addressed in Heller when he responded to the dissent saying that we don't interpret Constitutional rights that way...

It's an old argument, but the Internet and TV did not exist back then either. That does not limit 1A to the paper roll.
Nobody is ready to dismantle the NFA yet. Thus, we have the "limit" where the line can be drawn. The AR-15, the centerpiece of the law suit, is protected by 2A. No modifications of AR-15 are illegal, unless we have a conflicting federal law (NFA, atm). No Glocks are illegal, however Glock switches collide with the NFA.

Just to make my point clear, I think NFA is one bad law and it has to go.

[Avocado Toast]

CA passes bills that it knows are currently unconstitutional, on the belief, or prayer, that if the case appears in front of SCOTUS, the make-up of the court will have a liberal majority.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

We will see it in less than a year. Meanwhile, I would be happy if the states were prohibited to apply ANY limits overreaching the federal laws.

It's an old argument, but the Internet and TV did not exist back then either. That does not limit 1A to the paper roll.
Nobody is ready to dismantle the NFA yet. Thus, we have the "limit" where the line can be drawn. The AR-15, the centerpiece of the law suit, is protected by 2A. No modifications of AR-15 are illegal, unless we have a conflicting federal law (NFA, atm). No Glocks are illegal, however Glock switches collide with the NFA.

Just to make my point clear, I think NFA is one bad law and it has to go.

Did you note that I quoted Scalia from Heller where he indicated that the 1st Amendment protects modern forms of communication? Thus, it may be an 'old' argument, but Scalia still felt compelled to highlight it in the 2008 decision. Also remember that the protections regard the medium, not necessarily the content. You'll note some of that is still being arm-wrestled over in terms of SPAM calls, SPAM e-mails, etc.

Insofar as the AR-15 being 'protected,' that's what we're going to find out. At the moment, it's not exactly 'protected.' Look at all the so-called 'assault weapons' bans. Certain modifications are also illegal depending on your jurisdiction and the combination of features just here in California. Few of those features 'conflict' with the NFA, but they do violate the State's bans.

Glock switches are illegal. However, certain states have now caused Glock to go back and redesign the firearms so as to eliminate their ability to accept 'Glock switches.' Thus, while ownership of a certain iteration isn't necessarily illegal, in effect, the laws have forced the manufacturer to redesign the firearm so as to make it marketable.

Yep. I have my own issues with the NFA. My point, however, is that your statements aren't quite reality, which is why there are several lawsuits.

[Brown Rock]

If we win this thing does that mean I can remove the Bullet Button from my registered AR?

[C.G.]

If we win this thing does that mean I can remove the Bullet Button from my registered AR?

If the Supreme Court finds the AR-15 in common use, then yes.

[riderr]

Insofar as the AR-15 being 'protected,' that's what we're going to find out. At the moment, it's not exactly 'protected.' Look at all the so-called 'assault weapons' bans. Certain modifications are also illegal depending on your jurisdiction and the combination of features just here in California. Few of those features 'conflict' with the NFA, but they do violate the State's bans.

This is exactly the main argument point. AR15 are legal practically everywhere, except a few jurisdictions. However, in many places they are legal only if some stupid safety features are applied. You can't tell AR-15 are illegal in California completely. But the AR-15 in the original manufacturer design is illegal in CA. That's what I want to stress out. If SCOTUS does not incorporate the language, protecting the AR-15 original design, CA will claim their AWB is compliant with the ruling. Pretty much same, what Newsom said about the recent women's sports case.

Glock switches are illegal. However, certain states have now caused Glock to go back and redesign the firearms so as to eliminate their ability to accept 'Glock switches.' Thus, while ownership of a certain iteration isn't necessarily illegal, in effect, the laws have forced the manufacturer to redesign the firearm so as to make it marketable.

Well, the mere fact all men have a penis does not make them rapists. There is no need in the biological men specie redesign. It's not the state's job to demand such.

My point, however, is that your statements aren't quite reality, which is why there are several lawsuits.

I am not saying I have a perfect solution. However, I am simply stating how I believe SCOTUS may effectively reinstate 2A and force the blue state to comply.