View Single Post
  #135  
Old 12-04-2011, 1:55 AM
nobody_special nobody_special is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.Steele View Post
Nope, because you're still importing them, and California can still effectively exercise what's called "long arm jurisdiction" against you.
The experts all say that, and that sending magazines into the state from across the state line would get you imprisoned.

That may be the case, but I keep pointing out that PC 32310 reads (emphasis added):

Quote:
any person in this state who [...] imports into the state
That language would seem to preclude long-arm jurisdiction.

Even if jurisdiction is given and charges brought, how is it that a person who was not physically in California could be convicted under a law which explicitly only applies to a "person in this state"?

I don't think this can be reasonably read as "person who, in this state, imports."

Of course, a recipient in California would still be vulnerable. Though shipping to themselves from out of state would be an interesting situation if my interpretation were correct...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund G. Brown
There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffyhog
When the governor vetoes a bill that would make it a felony to steal a gun, but signs a bill into law that makes it a felony not to register a gun you already legally own, you know something isn't right.
Reply With Quote