Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

101
F4FEver wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 7:51 am
highdesert wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 10:26 am Yes to most Democratic politicians, the Bloomie groups and other anti-gunners like Giffords, the assumption is "guns are evil and only evil people use guns". Mea culpa to David Yamane for paraphrasing his mantra. The right aren't the only ones with sheeple, blue states have plenty of them too. Again another reason for abolishing the two party system, they are the ones who have divided this country. They want to keep everyone thinking in black and white terms, life isn't black and white, it's gray but they don't like gray thinking.
Unfortunately, all too many 'legal gun owners' do stupid and criminal things with their 'legally obtained guns'. YT is full of instances of this. Daily, and since everybody has a camera, recorded.

Agree, but how does anybody or any group do that? A third or fourth party candidate? Been tried many times and failed, many times.
Motor vehicle owners do stupid things, parents do stupid things, employers do stupid things.... Most gun owners are law abiding citizens, Dems gun control measures penalize law abiding gun owners, not criminals who never obey the law. We've never really had a multiple party system because the two main parties don't want it, so they block new parties. We've had independent candidates like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, but they've only run nationally. We have no functional third parties on the city, county and state level, the two main parties don't want more parties, because they take votes from them.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

102
highdesert wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 11:54 am We have no functional third parties on the city, county and state level, the two main parties don't want more parties, because they take votes from them.
That should be "The two main parties don't want more parties, because they take money from them.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

103
The reason given in this article is really strange. Note the bolded sentence. Did DVO's even exist back then? I don't think this reasoning is sound.
In deciding that case, the Supreme Court found that when courts are evaluating challenges to gun laws, they must ask first whether the conduct being regulated is covered by the text of the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms. If it is, they must then consider whether the regulation aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of regulating firearms.

In dismissing the possession charge against Combs, Reeves found that he had not been shown a “comparable historical analogue” to the law prohibiting gun possession by those with a domestic violence order against them.

Combs’ attorney, Thomas Lyons, said that though Combs was “pleased with the dismissal of the charge,” the ruling should not be viewed as “an endorsement for people to have guns when they have a domestic violence order in place.”

“Judge Reeves is obligated by his oath of office to do justice impartially, and to follow the law as pronounced by the Supreme Court,” Lyons said in an email. “This is the essence of the rule of law. I am confident Judge Reeves takes that oath seriously.”

Read more at: https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/ken ... rylink=cpy
Many laws that exist now did not exist in 1789, so I find this reasoning to be faulty. What other madness can precipitate from this foolishness?

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

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

104
As I post on the companion thread https://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB ... 51#p885351
TrueTexan wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 5:21 pm Also if this sets a precedent then the court going back to their idea of original intent, could look and rule on other decisions that had already been made, such as Miranda, Brown, and other decisions that were controversial at the time of the ruling. especially those the rightwing would love to see reversed. We have already seen Roe V Wade gutted. Heck if we took the idea of the original intent and historical precedent to the extremes, there would be no women or blacks serving on the courts.

Don't worry about domestic violence, because it is okay for a husband to correct his wife by using a cane or switch for correction. But only if it is not bigger around than the wedding ring he wears.

It was only within my lifetime that a woman and a black man was appoint to the SCOTUS.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

105
TrueTexan wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:00 pm As I post on the companion thread https://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB ... 51#p885351
TrueTexan wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 5:21 pm Also if this sets a precedent then the court going back to their idea of original intent, could look and rule on other decisions that had already been made, such as Miranda, Brown, and other decisions that were controversial at the time of the ruling. especially those the rightwing would love to see reversed. We have already seen Roe V Wade gutted. Heck if we took the idea of the original intent and historical precedent to the extremes, there would be no women or blacks serving on the courts.

Don't worry about domestic violence, because it is okay for a husband to correct his wife by using a cane or switch for correction. But only if it is not bigger around than the wedding ring he wears.

It was only within my lifetime that a woman and a black man was appoint to the SCOTUS.
This is hyperbole. There are many 18th and 19th century laws, even in the pre-colonial period and in English common law, that restrained or forbid domestic violence. This notion that 'ye olden times' were rife with domestic violence is an oversimplification manufactured I suspect by Hollywood. For example, the original Massachusetts charter strictly forbade domestic violence in the mid-17th century. It was the legal theory at the time according to the sources I've read that the Husband was responsible for his Wife's conduct in court, and so had the responsibility of "correction", but that "correction" shouldn't involve physical violence unless in the gravest matter. The "rule of thumb" is also a myth.

History is more complicated.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

107
This might be the right thread, but California's safety roster is likely kaputski.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge on Monday blocked key provisions of a California law that drastically restricts the sale of new handguns in the state, saying parts of the legislation violate the Second Amendment.

A lawsuit challenging the law was filed last year by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and other gun rights supporters following a landmark 2022 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that set new standards for evaluating firearm restrictions. The ruling left many laws aimed at regulating and limiting the sale and use of guns — in California and nationwide — at risk of being struck down.

U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney, sitting in Santa Ana, wrote Monday that California’s requirements for new handguns are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. Because of these restrictions, Carney wrote, no new models of semiautomatic handguns have been approved for sale since 2013 and Californians are forced to buy older and potentially less safe models.

He issued a preliminary injunction to take effect in two weeks, meaning the state would have to stop enforcing the law. The delay gives the state Department of Justice time to appeal.
More:

https://apnews.com/article/california-g ... f75555c044

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

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

108
The 2001 law, known as the Unsafe Handgun Act, requires new semiautomatic handguns to have an indicator showing when there is a round in the chamber and a mechanism to prevent firing when the magazine is not fully inserted, both meant to prevent accidental discharge. It also requires that they stamp a serial number onto bullets they fire, known as microstamping.

A previous challenge to the law was rejected by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018. But the new lawsuit was filed less than six weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that gun control measures must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of gun control regulation.
A previous challenge to the law was rejected by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018. But the new lawsuit was filed less than six weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that gun control measures must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of gun control regulation.

The plaintiffs said the law failed that test and severely restricted Californians' right to own guns, because no new guns are being manufactured that comply with the requirements. That means buyers in the state are limited to models from before 2013, when the law fully took effect, the plaintiffs said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge- ... 023-03-20/

This strikes down microstamping and puts a dent in the Roster. Bonta will appeal to the 9th Circuit so we'll see how they rule after Bruen.

From Reload:
California passed the Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) in 2001. It initially barred the sale of any new pistol models that didn’t include a loaded chamber indicator or magazine disconnect safety. However, in 2013 the state expanded the requirements to include so-called microstamping technology. In theory, microstamping would enable a gun to leave identifiable marks on every spent casing with the goal of helping police solve crimes. However, there has never been a production gun in the world that has implemented the theoretical technology.

The practical effect of adding the requirement, which a handful of other states are now considering implementing as well, was a complete ban on the sale of all handgun models created after 2013. Outside of police officers, who are not subject to the handgun roster restrictions despite California deeming guns outside of it “unsafe,” Californians have been mostly limited to buying pistols first introduced to the market more than 15 years ago. “These regulations are having a devastating impact on Californians’ ability to acquire and use new, state-of-the-art handguns,” Judge Cormac wrote. “Since 2007, when the [loaded chamber indicator] and [magazine disconnect safety] requirements were introduced, very few new handguns have been introduced for sale in California with those features. Since 2013, when the microstamping requirement was introduced, not a single new semiautomatic handgun has been approved for sale in California.”

Plaintiffs argued the handgun restrictions infringe on their Second Amendment rights and are unlike any regulation from the founding era, which is the key measure for constitutionality under Bruen. California argued the restrictions don’t directly implicate the Second Amendment because they don’t completely ban the ownership of all handguns, just those it considers “unsafe.” Judge Cormac found Bruen doesn’t require a total ban for a gun regulation to impact gun rights. He further rejected attempts to justify the restrictions by balancing their effect on gun owners with the state’s claims they prevent accidental shootings or help law enforcement.

“The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for self defense,” Judge Cormac said. “That right is so fundamental that to regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the government must show more than that the regulation promotes an important interest like reducing accidental discharges or solving crime. Rather, to be constitutional, regulations of Second Amendment rights must be ‘consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.'”

California argued its law had several historical analogues implementing gun restrictions aimed at preventing accidents or tracking firearms that date back to the founding era. The first was “proving” laws that required inspectors to verify, or “prove,” that barrels were adequately constructed. The second dealt with regulations on storing gunpowder as a precaution against accidental fires. It also cited a collection of historical rules surrounding where and how guns could be sold as evidence for a tradition of serial numbers or other tracking marks.

Judge Cormac was unconvinced by the examples California cited. He said proving laws were meant to ensure a gun operated as advertised, not require the maker to implement new safety features, and he said the gunpowder regulations were about preventing accidental building fires through poor storage rather than preventing negligent gunshots by adding new mechanisms to the firearms. Additionally, he argued the microstamping technology was not similar to serial numbering or other gun sales regulations because it imposed a much heavier burden on gun makers, one he argued was “simply not commercially available or even feasible to implement on a mass scale.”

Ultimately, he ruled the “how and why these regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense are too different to pass constitutional muster.” “Because enforcing those requirements implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, and the government fails to point to any well-established historical analogues that are consistent with them, those requirements are unconstitutional and their enforcement must be preliminarily enjoined,” he ruled.
https://thereload.com/federal-judge-blo ... trictions/

Boland vs Bonta
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 60.0_1.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

109
From the CA AG's office:
California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a preliminary injunction motion in Boland v. Bonta, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s Unsafe Handgun Act:

“The fact of the matter is, California’s gun safety laws save lives, and California’s Unsafe Handgun Act is no exception,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We will continue to lead efforts to advance and defend California’s gun safety laws. As we move forward to determine next steps in this case, Californians should know that this injunction has not gone into effect and that California’s important gun safety requirements related to the Unsafe Handgun Act remain in effect."

Today’s decision is stayed for 14 days to allow the State to file an appeal and seek a further stay from the court of appeals, and the chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect, and microstamping requirements for new semiautomatic pistols remain in effect until at least that time. The district court's decision also does not disturb the State's requirement that to be available for retail sale, a semiautomatic pistol must appear on the Roster of Certified Handguns after passing other safety requirements, such as drop safety and firing tests conducted by a certified independent laboratory.
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/ ... aves-lives

Post Bruen, SCOTUS vacated two decisions of the 9th Circuit on firearms, Young v Hawaii and Duncan v Bonta, both decisions were en banc. Has the 9th learned it's lesson or will they follow Bruen and affirm the decision of the district court?
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

111
DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:45 am
highdesert wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:50 am From Reload:
Since 2013, when the microstamping requirement was introduced, not a single new semiautomatic handgun has been approved for sale in California.”
https://thereload.com/federal-judge-blo ... trictions/
That is a feature of the law, wherein the state wins regardless of whether manufacturers comply.
Yup and Gavin Newsom (Gov), Kamala Harris (VP) when she was CA AG and Xavier Becerra (HHS Secty) when he was CA AG, all loyally supported microstamping. California's three stooges. And the California Supreme Court also upheld it. Why many dismiss CA court gun cases, they're often based on politics and not the law.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

113
I don't mind microstamping disappearing. It is impossible so far to get it done. The judge even stated that, that no production gun has it, and that this prevents people in affected states from buying state of the art hand guns. I see it as a positive step. I do see the "drop test" as being a legitimate safety concern.

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

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

116
featureless wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:51 pm Drop test is fine. I have no issue with that except you'll never be able to buy that sweet classic off GunBroker.
Personally I think the drop test should only be applied to manufacturing requirements today, not old used guns. The old are pretty much always sold with disclaimer to run it by a gunsmith before using. Implied unsafe until checked. Buying a used gun cannot in reality ever be made compliant with modern manufacturing standards. Therefore everyone should be able to buy off Gunbroker, they go through a FFL so that should be enough to ensure legal transfer.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

117
An order issued yesterday in Renna v Bonta (Roster):
In light of the court order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Boland et al. v. Bonta, 8:22-cv-1421, ECF Nos. 60, 61 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2023), the Court sets this matter for a telephonic status conference on March 22, 2023 at 2:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 21, 2023
_______________________________
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge
United States District Court]/quote] https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firear ... 1679441567

Speculation is it's down to either summary judgement or a preliminary injunction, but we don't know for certain.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

118
The California drop test sucks.

Has there been a handgun submitted that didn't pass? I know for the first several years they all passed, I haven't heard of any failures since but I haven't kept up with it. Even the POS crap guns like Jennings and Ravens (can't remember the actual manufacturers names who did submit but it was some of this poor quality) passed. They jammed, broke grips, sights flew off, etc, but they didn't "fire" so they passed.

Manufacturers need to submit 3 guns to test. They don't get them back. That's not just 3 guns of each model, but each variation of that model. Blued finish? That's 3 guns. Chromed? That's 3 more guns. Put a chromed slide on a blued frame? That's 3 more guns and of course, a blued slide on a chromed frame is 3 more guns. I think you can get away with different colors of the same finish but I'm not sure where the state draws the line. This process is done every 5 years or the firearm drops off the list.

Only manufacturers can submit firearms. So "Joe's Imports" finds truckloads of Makarovs in a warehouse in Europe. He's SOL for sales in CA as the manufacturer is out of business.

You can't buy only frames because they can't be tested. So that custom 1911 you want has to start as a whole gun.

When the Roster started there was a peak of about 1,800 handguns on it. Now there are about 600-700 on it.

It's not about safety.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

125
Seems like microstamping doesn't applies to revolvers, or to double-deuces, or something, because my new (and very fussy) Taurus 942 was introduced in 2020. It's a new model, just not a semiauto. Curious about that...
BKinzey wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:21 pm
"Joe's Imports" finds truckloads of Makarovs in a warehouse in Europe. He's SOL for sales in CA as the manufacturer is out of business.
That made me chuckle, because I live in California, and own a Makarov that I bought here in the very late '90s when a whole shit-pile of these were dumped on the market, must have been before the rule, or when it was applied differently. Also funny because one of the reasons I like about the gun's design is that unless it is cocked, nothing is going to make it fire if it's dropped, it's not mechanically possible. Most of that is the SA/DA thing, but with the safety on, even if you threw it at some crazy angle so the trigger was hit with 50 pounds of force, it won't chamber a round. Seems to be designed for drunk Siberian police officers-- and indeed, I was a heavy drinker when I bought it!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests