Re: California

27
This is what I wrote on the previous page that K9s replied about:
Leave us not forget that a Republican governor signed the California assault weapons bill, just like a Republican governor signed the microstamping bill which gives us our roster and handgun prohibitions, just like a Republican governor signed the Mulford Act which prevents us from carrying openly in a state where all the urban areas will not grant carry licenses because reasons.
K9s wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:16 am Yeah, GOP doesn't ever bring that up, do they?
Of course not. If they let on that Republicans signed the laws we all hate while saying they support gun rights, they'd damn near elect Donald Trump president.

Oh, wait.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: California

29
Actually the suit is perfectly timed, as both will be appealed beyond the next court and be petitioned to be picked up by the supreme court. If (and that's a big if) the mag case gets to the supreme court AND is decided in our favor, then the AW ban will also, based on the same merits, likely be overturned as well.

As to the questions around what exactly is being challenged, it's not just existing owners. Two gun shops have also joined the suit regarding the ability to sell guns that fall under existing law to folks that pass a background check. So it's pretty damned comprehensive. If the suit fails, more states will pass restrictions like it. If it succeeds, then a whole bunch of existing laws are (rightly) going to get torched.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: California

30
CDFingers wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:27 pm Leave us not forget that a Republican governor signed the California assault weapons bill, just like a Republican governor signed the microstamping bill which gives us our roster and handgun prohibitions, just like a Republican governor signed the Mulford Act which prevents us from carrying openly in a state where all the urban areas will not grant carry licenses because reasons.

Don't forget.

CDFingers
Yes, Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 was signed into law by Rep Gov George Deukmejian. The CA microstamping billing was signed into law in 2007 by Rep Gov Arnold the Terminator. And the Mulford Act in 1967 was signed into law by Rep Gov Ronald Reagan.

Republicans can't argue they have clean hands in violating 2A rights.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

31
Wait... what about deficits and spending then? Are you trying to tell me that was all a lie, too?

Back on track... it would be pretty cool if SCOTUS would slow the AWB talk. If Dems could just say "it's the law of the land".
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: California

35
featureless wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:51 pm The Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been filed in this case.
http://publicfiles.firearmspolicy.org/m ... so-mpi.pdf

It's worth noting the judge is the same one that gave us Californians magazine "freedom week" earlier in the year. The argument is similar to that case--Heller doesn't allow banning categories of firearms in common use by law abiding citizens. Another freedom week?
Save up your pennies... just in case. :)
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: California

36
K9s wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:07 pm
featureless wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:51 pm The Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been filed in this case.
http://publicfiles.firearmspolicy.org/m ... so-mpi.pdf

It's worth noting the judge is the same one that gave us Californians magazine "freedom week" earlier in the year. The argument is similar to that case--Heller doesn't allow banning categories of firearms in common use by law abiding citizens. Another freedom week?
Save up your pennies... just in case. :)
:lol:

Re: California

38
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:41 pm Updates in Miller v. Becerra.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 9.33.0.pdf
As has been the case since the enactment of the AWCA decades ago, the individual Plaintiffs are free to arm themselves with other weapons, including non-assault rifles, pistols, or shotguns, to engage in lawful self-defense. They may arm themselves with semiautomatic, rimfire rifles, or semiautomatic, centerfire rifles that do not have any of the militaristic features of an assault rifle. In restricting access to a uniquely dangerous subset ofmilitary-grade firearms,the AWCA will not irreparably harmPlaintiffsduring this litigation.
I predict the ban will stand.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: California

39
This case is before Judge Benitz who overturned the mag ban now at the 9th Circuit so we'll see. Trump has now appointed 10 judges to the 9th Circuit and there are some judges like O'Scannlain and Callahan appointed by previous Republican presidents that are sympathetic to 2A rights but not all Republican appointees. Every time an active judge takes senior status there is a new vacancy for Trump to fill. There are still more Clinton appointees on the 9th than Trump appointees, but since O'Connell got rid of blue slips Feinstein and Harris have no say in appointments to CA based federal courts.

We'll see what happens in this case.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

40

highdesert wrote:This case is before Judge Benitz...
Benitez was not too keen on the ban on purchasing ammunition without government permission. I suspect that will be overturned on appeal, though, as would an injunction against California's ban on semi-automatic carbines targeted by firearm prohibitionists.
Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: California

41
DispositionMatrix wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:28 am
highdesert wrote:This case is before Judge Benitz...
Benitez was not too keen on the ban on purchasing ammunition without government permission. I suspect that will be overturned on appeal, though, as would an injunction against California's ban on semi-automatic carbines targeted by firearm prohibitionists.
Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge
When the gun lobby groups go judge shopping, I imagine Judge Benitez is at the top of their list. It's random assignment of cases and Benitez has senior status so he doesn't get assigned as many cases as an active district judge, but he's gotten quite a number of them. Hope he doesn't fully retire in the new future, we need him.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

43
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/f ... 1605748131

FPC Files Final Pre-Trial Brief in “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit; Case Heads to Trial in January
SAN DIEGO (November 18, 2020) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that the final pre-trial brief in Miller v. Becerra, its federal Second and Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the State of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” was filed today. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

The final pre-trial conference in Miller is scheduled to take place in San Diego on December 16, 2020, before Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, with the bench trial to follow on January 21, 2021. The plaintiffs are represented at trial by attorneys George M. Lee, John Dillon, and Erik Jaffe.

FPC’s brief argues that the “arms and conduct proscribed by the [State’s Assault Weapons Control Act] are categorically protected under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and the Supreme Court’s precedents.” It further argues that under the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, the ban is categorically unconstitutional, and that the laws also fail strict and intermediate scrutiny, two approaches that courts sometimes use to decide constitutional questions. It concludes by requesting that the Court issue an opinion declaring the laws and regulations at issue are unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction preventing Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms Chief Luis Lopez, and all law enforcement throughout California from enforcing those unconstitutional laws against the Plaintiffs and all law-abiding adults in the State.

Re: California

45
I really hope Benitez rules in favor of Californians like me who want to be able to own and properly operate rifles that are designed for modularity, precision, and convenience. What other product that could be described as such would be shat on as much as the AR? This weekend I went hog hunting with my Cali-neutered AR (Kali-Key equipped so that I can have the pistol grip and an adjustable stock) and I thought a lot about how wonderfully suited that rifle is to what I was doing, especially when it considering that a lot of hunting requires wearing a pack, which shortens the length of pull- an adjustable stock is needed in such situations. Add to that the convenience of being able to carry all the ammo you need for a hunt in one mag (or two/three thanks to Cali laws) and the fact that the platform is easy to stabilize and highly accurate (safe/humane) and you have a product that under ANY other circumstances would be praised as a marvel of innovation. Instead, our laws make these less adjustable (fixed stocks), less safe ("featureless grips" that limit proper stability and access to safety switches), and less convenient ammo transport (12 mags for 120 rounds rather than 3 mags).
Sorry to rant here, but I'm a practical guy, and these laws drive me insane, even though I comply with them here in Cali.
Oh, and I got that hog. It will feed my family and my neighbors.
Crow
Minute Of Average

Re: California

46
Yup, the Mulford Act was signed by Reagan with support by Republicans and Democrats and microstamping was signed into law by Schwarzenegger passed by a Democratic controlled state legislature. And the "son of microstamping" was passed in 2020 by the Democratic controlled trifecta that includes another poison pill,
In addition to the new microstamping measure, the number of types of gun-law compliant handguns in California would be reduced as AB 2847 would introduce a system of removing three handguns from the current handgun roster that are non-compliant with current laws for each handgun added.

Assemblyman Chiu had written AB 2847 to reduce the number of black market firearms in the state, as well as help police solve firearm related crimes quicker.

“AB 2847, would require gunmakers to incorporate microstamping technology — to imprint microscopic characters that identify a handgun’s make, model, and serial number on the casing of every bullet that is fired,” said Assemblyman Chiu earlier this year. “Having this information is critical to solving countless crimes involving firearms, as well as to reducing the black market for guns.”
https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/f ... signature/

Another measure that CA law enforcement strongly supports. If it was left up to law enforcement they'd put CCTV cameras on every corner in the US. The science isn't there for microstamping, but CA Democratic politicians and judges would rather support fiction than science.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

47
Crow wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:01 pm I really hope Benitez rules in favor of Californians like me who want to be able to own and properly operate rifles that are designed for modularity, precision, and convenience.
My first experience with the old bullet button was sort of along the lines of "jesus christ, you'll shoot your eye out, kid." Went featureless thereafter. You should not have to fuck with a firearm that much to change a magazine in the event of a malfunction or to clear a live round mid magazine.

Congrats on the pig. That is high on my to do list, someday.

Re: California

48
And just for funzies, the AW ban cannot stand under Miller or Heller, ARs being both useful for militia purposes (seeing how politicians have defined them as military-style assault weapons) and in common use for lawful purposes. I hope to read more about what Benitez has to say about that soon. :)

Re: California

49
highdesert wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:12 pm The science isn't there for microstamping, but CA Democratic politicians and judges would rather support fiction than science.
Also, what about those of us who reload for pistols? Does it become a crime to re-size microstamped brass? What if I pick up range brass with someone else's stamp? etc etc. I mean, I'm all for keeping bad guys from doing bad stuff, but...
The more we regulate this stuff the stupider it all gets. Root cause mitigation, people!!
Crow
Minute Of Average

Re: California

50
featureless wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:22 pm My first experience with the old bullet button was sort of along the lines of "jesus christ, you'll shoot your eye out, kid." Went featureless thereafter. You should not have to fuck with a firearm that much to change a magazine in the event of a malfunction or to clear a live round mid magazine.

Congrats on the pig. That is high on my to do list, someday.
Thanks, it was a great hunt, and besides stocking the freezer during a time when going to a grocery store feels akin to skydiving, the ranchers are happy to get rid of the pests.
As for that bullet button... yeah. I've tried just about every Kompliance product in some fashion or another, and the Kali Key is the best I've found when it comes to a hunting scenario, since triple taps at 100 yds ain't a thing. Plus who doesn't like a mouthful of Carbon?
Crow.
Minute Of Average

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: VodoundaVinci and 3 guests