Unconfigured Ad Widget

**taperxz** · 09-03-2013, 5:41 PM

Sweet!

**Casual_Shooter** · 09-03-2013, 6:16 PM

The link goes to an article from 2011. Does your post indicate something is happening currently?

**fizux** · 09-03-2013, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Casual_Shooter

The link goes to an article from 2011. Does your post indicate something is happening currently?

Nope, it means that I am going to work on fleshing out the info on this case and update the OP shortly*.

* a period of time approximately equal to two weeks.

**Casual_Shooter** · 09-04-2013, 7:31 PM

Originally posted by fizux

Nope, it means that I am going to work on fleshing out the info on this case and update the OP shortly*.

* a period of time approximately equal to two weeks.

Excellent. I appreciate your recent posts with details of the different cases.

**readysetgo** · 06-13-2014, 12:24 PM

Another DROS fund raid in the works... seems relevant news.

Calguns discussion thread here: SB 580 - $15 Million raid of fees paid by gun owners, to fund APPS confiscation / DOJ

**Drivedabizness** · 06-13-2014, 7:15 PM

Jeezuz H - is this pace not glacially slow???

I suppose we have to take the corn holing for another year minimum - an injunction wasn't in the cards?

**Librarian** · 03-04-2015, 4:13 PM

Ruling today - http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...440/228128/60/

Decision and order

In any event, the DROS fee imposes only a $19.00 fee on firearm transactions. Under any level of scrutiny, the DROS fee is constitutional because it places only a marginal burden on “the core of the Second Amendment,” which is “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 635).6

**M. D. Van Norman** · 03-04-2015, 4:17 PM

**CCWFacts** · 03-04-2015, 4:25 PM

If voter registration required ID, a background check, and costed $19, and there were no waivers or fee assistance programs available, Obama would never have been president. I would be 100% ok with a $19 voter reg fee!

**gobler** · 03-04-2015, 4:38 PM

Or how about a basic test on political science. You know, to make sure the voters understands how our form of government works?

**readysetgo** · 03-04-2015, 4:55 PM

How 'bout $19 x 2,000,000? The approximate amount they've been trying to swindle for their "marginal" burden.

**thorium** · 03-04-2015, 5:12 PM

While we don't like the decision, this was a District Court judge appointed by George W Bush, and as an objective legal matter, it does seem he was just following 9CA precedent.

Just another reason why we need more circuit and SCOTUS level precedent and we're going to have a mixed bag of results until there is more jurisprudence out there..

**RobertMW** · 03-04-2015, 5:29 PM

Under any level of scrutiny, the DROS fee is constitutional because it places only a marginal burden on “the core of the Second Amendment,”

This whole "It's not strict scrutiny, therefore the law doesn't have to be well tailored," argument is getting very frustrating.

I get the argument that going up and down the scrutiny levels that the burden can be more or less on the .gov to prove that it is a necessary law for their stated goal, but clearly stupid crap, like charging fees in excess of what is necessary to recuperate the costs of running a program, is way too easy to blow through the courts.

Where are these judges found? Do they not take some basic logic and mathematics along with their ten-thousand english classes? I'm glad that the law was written well, but we all give a damn about what it DOES!

**Ahimoth** · 03-04-2015, 5:32 PM

On a positive note, I do like that they made reference to Peruta.

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees) - Appeal to 9th, 7/20/15 - LOSS June 1 2017

Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees) - Appeal to 9th, 7/20/15 - LOSS June 1 2017

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Calguns.net Statistics

What's Going On