Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-15-2018, 2:27 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,918
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

If I remember the complaint correctly, aren't some out of state ammo retailers also plaintiffs in this suit?
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-15-2018, 6:46 AM
LanceBV LanceBV is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
If I remember the complaint correctly, aren't some out of state ammo retailers also plaintiffs in this suit?
Yes, I believe so.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-15-2018, 9:57 AM
rp55's Avatar
rp55 rp55 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,732
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

What about if another state sued CA on behalf of ammo manufacturers in their states? As I recall state vs. state beefs go directly to the Supremes. I recall this being done in some agricultural issue like CA forcing cage free eggs or something.
__________________
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j302/rpwhite55/guns/member13443.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-15-2018, 11:04 AM
Sousuke Sousuke is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,810
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rp55 View Post
What about if another state sued CA on behalf of ammo manufacturers in their states? As I recall state vs. state beefs go directly to the Supremes. I recall this being done in some agricultural issue like CA forcing cage free eggs or something.
When I think of agriculture I think of Foie gras. Out of state producers sued and eventually lost on the premise of unconstitutionality (commerce clause).
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-15-2018, 4:00 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,371
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rp55 View Post
What about if another state sued CA on behalf of ammo manufacturers in their states? As I recall state vs. state beefs go directly to the Supremes. I recall this being done in some agricultural issue like CA forcing cage free eggs or something.
SCOTUS doesn't have to necessarily take any case, but something like that under the Commerce clause may be something that they'd take, unlike the 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-15-2018, 4:06 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,743
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
SCOTUS doesn't have to necessarily take any case, but something like that under the Commerce clause may be something that they'd take, unlike the 2A.
I doubt anyone will be fooled into thinking that this ISN'T a 2A case, despite the interstate commerce angle. Also bans on internet sales of ammo (as well as alcohol/wine/spirits etc. have been around a long time). Not sure if this will get very far. But always hoping for the best.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-15-2018, 5:29 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,034
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am going to try and stay updated on this case. I hope there is a 12b6 hearing pretty soon. I would like to attend it

the State has to file something by the 17th

Last edited by wolfwood; 05-15-2018 at 5:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-20-2018, 4:00 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,034
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

motion to dismiss filed

https://www.scribd.com/document/3796...ion-to-Dismiss
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-20-2018, 9:18 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 491
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Is there any other product which is legal outside a state, and it's legal inside of a state, but if you buy the product, for personal use, outside the state then try to bring it back inside the state it's illegal to do it , unless you pay a tax?

I was thinking Cigarettes is a good example, but as far as I know a personal use purchase is not regulated this way. If you have a business doing importation this it would be different.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-20-2018, 2:31 PM
FlyingShooter FlyingShooter is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 384
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Berccera is a scumbag....he’s successfully helping to turn CA into full blown Mexico.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-20-2018, 2:54 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What did you expect?

If you read it sounds weak
__________________
One life don't blow it!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-20-2018, 5:00 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 842
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJB View Post
What did you expect?

If you read it sounds weak
That is what I thought, too. But then I am biased. I wonder if Fabio is going to weigh in on the chances of this litigation.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-20-2018, 6:33 PM
wonkavision42 wonkavision42 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: sf bay area
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There’s something about the 1st two sentences of the Introduction on page 7 of 27 ...
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-20-2018, 6:37 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,164
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I' ve been working in the federal court system for awhile and I doubt luck has much to do with it. Judges on both sides tend to find a way on the cases they like.
That's exactly what happened. See the notice of related case that was filed by Michel and Associates. Good.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-21-2018, 4:00 AM
augoldminer augoldminer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
...Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is running for governor, defended his initiative and vowed to fight the NRA lawsuit.

“We wrote Proposition 63 on solid legal ground and principle: If you're a felon banned from possessing guns in California, then you should not be able to purchase the ammunition that makes a firearm deadly,” Newsom said in a statement. “California voters said loudly and clearly that guns and ammunition do not belong in the hands of dangerous individuals — but once again, the NRA has prioritized gun industry profits over the lives of law-abiding Californians.”
A felon will just walk into a store and buy there ammo out of state.
What do they care about the law if they need ammo that just means they already have a weapon and are in violation anyway.

Last edited by augoldminer; 05-21-2018 at 4:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-22-2018, 11:40 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 218
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

A pistol that was stolen from me was recovered and returned (after many, many years in evidence). To my surprise, it was returned with the mag loaded (it had been empty when stolen). The bullets in it were obviously those of the gang banger that had last possessed it, and is now likely in Federal prison based on what the detectives were telling me.

Anyway, long story short, those bullets were dated 1986. $20 bucks says they were bought at a garage sale / estate sale. That happened long before this ammo bill was passed... felons are effectively already getting ammo by other means, as stated multiple times on this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by augoldminer View Post
A felon will just walk into a store and buy there ammo out of state.
What do they care about the law if they need ammo that just means they already have a weapon and are in violation anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-15-2018, 7:35 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,162
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by augoldminer View Post
A felon will just walk into a store and buy there ammo out of state.
What do they care about the law if they need ammo that just means they already have a weapon and are in violation anyway.
If privileged leftists like Gavin Newsom really gave a damn they would be addressing their criminal constituents who are committing the crime. Not targeting the constitutional rights of their political enemies for destruction. What basically amounts to persecution for acting like an American.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:19 PM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,329
iTrader: 73 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by augoldminer View Post
A felon will just walk into a store and buy there ammo out of state.
What do they care about the law if they need ammo that just means they already have a weapon and are in violation anyway.
Well, if a ton of cocaine can be smuggled over the border I'm sure a few bullets and or guns would be even easier..

A BG only needs one bullet to ruin your day.. to think any of these ammo laws will stop any crime is just lunacy.
__________________
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." - Ayn Rand.

Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA, Guardian Front Sight
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-16-2018, 12:38 AM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,432
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If criminals can figure out a way around Kalif gun laws, then getting ammo is is going to be even easier.


Its good that Kim Rhode is involved here, being a female and Olympic champion shows that us gun owners are not the stereotype that they think we are.
__________________
"I saved your life, AND brought you pizza" -- Me

Last edited by Garand1911; 06-16-2018 at 12:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-16-2018, 2:36 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 842
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand1911 View Post
Its good that Kim Rhode is involved here, being a female and Olympic champion shows that us gun owners are not the stereotype that they think we are.
Not sure about the female part. But not being able to practice a perishable skill at a championship level can be a compelling narrative. I only wish more competitive shooters had stepped up to challenge the ammunition import ban.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 06-16-2018, 2:40 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,918
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Not sure about the female part. But not being able to practice a perishable skill at a championship level can be a compelling narrative. I only wish more competitive shooters had stepped up to challenge the ammunition import ban.
The problem is, while we all know this law is a major obstacle to buying ammo, we also all know she's still going to get ammo regardless.... That's the problem with fighting these "baby steps" laws, is no single one of them appears to outsiders as causing any major obstacle by itself; you have to factor in the big picture - how ALL of these laws act in concert to make gun ownership prohibitively difficult - to be able to present a case, and that's the problem with lawsuits that challenge only a single law. I'd love to see one that challenges the entire Weapons section of the penal code, but I doubt we'll ever see that.
__________________



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-16-2018 at 2:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-16-2018, 2:45 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 842
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The problem is, while we all know this law is a major obstacle to buying ammo, we also all know she's still going to get ammo regardless.... That's the problem with fighting these "baby steps" laws, is no single one of them appears to outsiders as causing any major obstacle by itself.
As long as Kim Rhode is spending an additional $20 for ammo post ban, she has standing. She could hit the $20 threshold within a week, maybe sooner. As far as baby steps, you have to draw a line at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-28-2018, 3:44 PM
HK9 HK9 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingShooter View Post
Berccera is a scumbag....he’s successfully helping to turn CA into full blown Mexico.
Let's do the math on that. Ah, I see. That would make Mexico the biggest gun smuggler into California. Well, hey. They've been the biggest drug smuggler into California, so why not add guns to the list as well. Seems about right.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-28-2018, 5:46 PM
HK9 HK9 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Public Sub ChangingCaliforniaOnGuns
Dim MaxRant As Super String
If

Folks, you've got Gavin Newsom, waiting in the pre-pared wings of the democratic party for internal coronation. That means, no matter what, there will be an Ammo Ban (I don't care what they call it) for those who fail to reveal their identity to State Authorities, one way or another. Rest assured that after Newsom's coronation as Sovereign Lord of the State of California, things [gun laws] will become even more restrictive under the guise of "protecting California's citizens."

We can spend our time and money rebounding and always reactionary to that which is constantly an offensive against the Second Amendment, or we can spend our time, energy, effort and money on putting the right people in office to prevent the need for always being in reactionary mode. This is Pure Unadulterated Politics and you will have to fight fire with fire in order for real change.

I know, its not sexy. Its not fast, prompt or even technical. However, it is the Absolute Truth about how things will change in California, with respect to our outrageous violations of Constitutional Protections. So, how do we accomplish such a feat? A four (4) pronged approach:

1) Organize
2) Educate The Middle
3) Fund Game Changing Candidates
4) Vote

You are not going to convince Gavin Newsom, the male version of Dianne Feinstein, when it comes to stealing Second Amendment protections - to somehow give up his pathology on guns. However, there are more Middle of the Road Californians out there who since Ronald Reagan, have gone along with more left leaning Ballot proposals merely for a lack of closely held intellectual opposition. What do I mean by that? Many of them simply did not know or associate (regularly) with someone strongly in support of the Second Amendment - and therefore, did not have any affinity for those kinds of views politically speaking.

I'm not talking about hard leaning cloaked Socialists pretending to be slightly left of center open minded Liberals. I'm talking about the old Reagan'esk Democrat who of late has been leaning more and more left. If you want to truly understand and solve this problem, you must first understand the Reagan Democrat. Don't conflate this point with the other point, that Reagan, was responsible for some of the most wicked gun laws in the State of California. This is a bit more complex than making such simple equations.

You will have to remember that those "Democrats" who supported Reagan, were mostly Middle-Class Workers. Yes, Carter, was perceived as weak, prices at the pump were rising, inflation was on the move upwards and hostages were being taken in Iran - I get that. But, the Reagan support from the "left" came from people who were not Ultra-Anti Gunners and THAT is what's important here. That's the real battle ground for regaining the constitutional protections set forth in the Second Amendment within the State of California. So, how do you do it?

Creative Organized Effort is the first step. 4 out of the last 5 times I went to the range, I took someone who had never fired a gun in their life before and who also voted Obama, in 2008 and Bush in 2000. My selection of them was by organized design. You meet people everyday of your life. I simply became more social than I ordinarily might, began making more acquaintances personally and would from time to time, slip in the fact that I would not be available next weekend for the movies, because I had prior plans to be at the range. When you are dealing with someone who is not right of center, that typically goes in one ear and out the other.

After some point in the establishment of the relationship, I simply invite them to the range with me - directly and forthrightly. They already know I'm into guns and they don't have massive distrust issues. The whole thing becomes a Social (matter of fact) Event, not an ingrained Decision To Make In A Voting Booth. This is where step two ensues, Educating The Middle. You are not there at the range to Lecture. You are there to have fun and in doing so, it becomes the foundation for a Teachable Moment.

It is within that moment that you begin to dispel the myriad myths surrounding evil guns in the mind of your Range Partner. They just see it as being at the range with you. Subconsciously, they are being re-educated or educated for the first time. Start them out with a 22 caliber. You are not there to scare them with the recoil of +P+ 45ACP, or the shoulder bang of 762. It is a process of getting the individual to recognize that guns have a purpose and that purpose is indeed not evil.

When the time comes, you fund candidates who are equally middle of the road and supportive of the entire Constitution which of course, includes the Second Amendment. In other words, all of us who support the Second Amendment are going to have to lower the volume on "gun rhetoric" and simply make it about shared responsibility to maintain the Constitution as it stands, regardless of Amendment Number. This will be more attractive an approach to your new found Range Partners and when it comes time to vote, they will pull the lever, punch the card or press the stylist in such a manner that respects YOUR beliefs, values and interests. Why? Because they have actually spent time SHARING your beliefs, values and interests at the Range.

Thus, my call for a "Take A Centrist To The Range Day." This should be the new shot heard around the world. It is like American Express. For decades you were told "don't leave home without it." Well, if you want this state to change, then you should never visit a range without a slightly Left Leaning Centrist. When that demographic comes out in droves to vote - the issues typically move in their direction within this particular State.

Start thinking about what your Children's Children will face in this State relative to more so-called gun control, long after you are gone. Start engaging in a little harmless social engineering of your own. Fighting fire with fire. That's what Anti-Gunners have been doing for years now. They LITERALLY get together in GROUPS and talk about how evil guns are.

Start forming your own Range Groups with those who are slightly Left of Center. Then start showing them that evil People, not guns, are the real issue and that usurping Constitutional Amendment Protection was never even the real question, let alone the real answer.

We can drag ourselves through ever court room in the State of California, but that won't change much in the face of oncoming rank opposition to guns in general and the generational pathology that places guns at the center of evil within the State. You are going to have to deal with this problem on a Social basis that transforms the root pathology of having an auto-anti-gun mentality into one of understanding, empathy and respect for all values that are protected within the Constitution.

Anything less than this, and you are (long term) wasting your time with individuals like Newsom, who will be taking office as the next California Governor. They want all of California, a Gun Free Zone ultimately. That's not a joke. I actually heard that from someone who worked in the Attorney Generals Office at a level that would know, during an in-person personal conversation.

Going Social, is the only viable answer (long term). Get out there, press the flesh, meet and greet - do whatever you have to do in order to gain enough trust so that your invitation to the range is accepted. From that point, you MUST lead and guide without lecture or arrogance. Just have fun and do it often, so that others can see and understand that neither you nor your gun are evil, nor have a hidden agenda to be evil.

The winning of hearts and minds is truly winning. Everything else is an expensive (time, energy and effort expended) band-aid in juxtaposition to what's on the horizon, A Gavin Newsom California. If you thought it was bad up to this point for the Constitution, you ain't seen nothing until you get the full does of Gavin. I have personally watched this man in San Francisco, and it was really scary to behold mine own eyes. This man gives a whole new meaning to the word: Slick.

Become MUCH more socially active and invitational into your world. Inoculation, not indoctrination is the key to blunting anti-gun legislation at the polls. Bring'em to the range and show'em a really good time. Over and over and over again until they want to buy something of their own. And, there you have it. A convert with an interest to protect the Constitution.

This was NEVER Rocket Science. Just think about it. Just go back to 2000, the election of Bush 43. If gun rights activists in California, had taken this approached in an organized fashion back then, there would be no Bullet Button Insanity, Roster of Handgun Insanity and certainly no Ammunition Vendor and Buyer Insanity. Hell, 3-Gun with a normal rifle would not make you a certifiable criminal within state boundaries. Modern CZ, Canik and all the others we cannot touch or even sniff would be here as well.

Get it done. No more excuses for failure to bring someone left of center to the range with you. Don't have any left of center friends? Too, gawd dam bad. Go make some friends and bring them to the range with you. This is no longer optional. It is not a courtroom game anymore. Gavin Newsom, is about to be our Governor. That ought to scare the crap our of you and motivate you to want Left of Center Friends. LOTS of them!

Its time to wake up to what's really going to change things in this State. Again, I'm not talking about trying to score someone as far left as Anderson Cooper, for a day at the range. That would be extreme and difficult at minimum. In fact, if you did it - he may turn that into yet another anti-gun story in CNN. I'm talking about someone like Michael Smerconish. Not because he grew-up a Republican, but because he grew up a Republican and was willing to vote for Obama in 2008. And, not because he factually voted for Obama, but because he was Centered enough to do it! THAT is the kind of person you take to the range and there are lots of Californians out there who fit that bill, despite what they say about this being an ultra liberal state.

Mike, believes in the Center. I believe in the Center. The Center is where the battle should be waged as that ground holds the highest probability for preserving the United States Constitution.

Now, go find you a Centrist who has never shot a gun before, develop some rapport with him/her and then invite that person for a day at the range. Maybe in two years we will be doing more than talking about the outcome of Pena -vs- Cid, or how the 9th Circuit continues to laugh at us behind closed doors (something I heard as well as being more true than not)

End If
End Sub
End MaxRant
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-29-2018, 9:58 PM
Diamondi88 Diamondi88 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Wildomar
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HK9 View Post
Public Sub ChangingCaliforniaOnGuns

If
This wall of text was both hard to read, and understand. I really wish there was something I could point to and recommend or argue against, but I fell asleep before then. Is it possible to break this wall into individual blocks so the dumbass's like me can follow along?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-23-2018, 11:38 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,034
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.scribd.com/document/386912936/Rhode-12b6

12b6 filed to amended complaint
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-23-2018, 12:20 PM
malfunction's Avatar
malfunction malfunction is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: low crawling towards the state line...
Posts: 363
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondi88 View Post
This wall of text was both hard to read, and understand. I really wish there was something I could point to and recommend or argue against, but I fell asleep before then. Is it possible to break this wall into individual blocks so the dumbass's like me can follow along?
Basically it's a proposal that you take some moderate liberal types to the range a time or two, they will have a nice time, buy their own guns and start voting for freedom and liberty flavored candidates. Apparently.

Also way off topic
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
What we have in practice is a legal system, not a justice system.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-29-2018, 7:54 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 856
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Thanks for taking the time to post these docs (and even more for your pro bono work).

I noticed it’s before Benitez, the same judge that has put a hold on the > 10 round magazine confiscation. That bodes well, at least for the district court level.
__________________
-------------------------

Last edited by thorium; 08-29-2018 at 8:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-09-2018, 4:48 PM
Nachtwulf Nachtwulf is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
This line in the request for dismissal just perplexes me..

"For each transaction, they will have to record information —
including the
purchaser’s driver’s license number and home address,
and the brand, type, and amount of ammunition"

... what difference does it make, according to their argument, what brand,type,and amount of ammo make? I mean if you are a felon then the question would stop at ammo period right?

Dale
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-10-2018, 7:14 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malfunction View Post
Basically it's a proposal that you take some moderate liberal types to the range a time or two, they will have a nice time, buy their own guns and start voting for freedom and liberty flavored candidates. Apparently.

Also way off topic
It's also hopeless. It's been done before. It fails, for the most part, when it is tried.

There are only 2 things that can save California.

1. Complete and utter financial / social collapse (a la Venezuela);
2. Revolt (either physical or social).

The Politicians, citizenry and Courts have all combined to alter the landscape in Ca to one of dependency on the government to save the people from the government. The justice system has failed because it no longer serves to check government excesses. The political system has failed because it no longer serves the will of the people. The social system has failed because it no longer distinguishes between good and evil.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-10-2018, 3:16 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 842
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
It's also hopeless. It's been done before. It fails, for the most part, when it is tried.

There are only 2 things that can save California.

1. Complete and utter financial / social collapse (a la Venezuela);
Doubtful with CA being the 5th largest global economy.
Quote:
2. Revolt (either physical or social).
Not going to happen. If it were going to happen, it would have happened by now.

Quote:
The Politicians, citizenry and Courts have all combined to alter the landscape in Ca to one of dependency on the government to save the people from the government. The justice system has failed because it no longer serves to check government excesses. The political system has failed because it no longer serves the will of the people. The social system has failed because it no longer distinguishes between good and evil.
Unfortunately, the concept of the Bill of Rights existing as a protection against the tyranny of the majority has been lost. At a certain point, if the burden of not being able to exercise 2A rights becomes great enough, people leave the state for more friendly environs.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-10-2018, 3:27 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Unfortunately (fortunately for me) t ch industry keeps on printing money for CA to redistribute.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-11-2018, 6:49 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Doubtful with CA being the 5th largest global economy.
All it would take is a terrorist attack in LA with a dirty bomb. Or The Big One. Or the next Extinction Event via biological means. OR, continuing down the path wherein non-citizens have more privileges than citizens and the State increases taxes to pay for those privileges while restricting services to citizens because there is no money to pay for those.

California is teetering on the edge of hysteria over the results of an election for President. All it would take for the State to start removing Rights wholesale would be for a mega event to occur. They'd do it for the safety of the citizenry, but they'd do it. "Temporarily" until things calm down of course. And then the "temporary measures' would become permanent.

Martial law.
Mandatory curfews.
No travel.
No access to the Courts.
No redress.
Increased taxes to offset the expenditures by the State for the "protection" of the people.
Etc.

Quote:
Not going to happen. If it were going to happen, it would have happened by now.
It isn't bad enough yet. we still have access to the courts and government. Whether they uphold the law or not isn't enough. It's when we no longer have access that it begins to tip.

Quote:
Unfortunately, the concept of the Bill of Rights existing as a protection against the tyranny of the majority has been lost. At a certain point, if the burden of not being able to exercise 2A rights becomes great enough, people leave the state for more friendly environs.
It's not limited to 2A Rights. When the burden of exercising any Right or Freedom becomes too much, people will vote with their feet and leave. That was one of the reasons this country attracted the early settlers in the first place.

If you remember, it wasn't that long before revolution took place as the governments the settlers came from sought to impose those burdens and restrictions here. California is already seeking to find ways to impose its laws outside its borders. It will attempt this with more gusto as more and more people leave and the revenue base shrinks. (Note the bills signed over the weekend by Brown regarding Federal offshore oil leases which prohibit construction of new pipelines. Laws which violate interstate commerce** and the concept of Federalism wherein States do not have the authority to contravene Federal acts or decisions. [See eg; Marbury vs. Madison] Of course this is a natural outgrowth of States like California ignoring federal laws regarding illegal drugs and immigration with impunity. By the same token, the lack of enforcing Federal Authority allows California to believe it can dictate and enforce its laws anywhere and to anyone because of the power vacuum.)

Eventually, the populace will revolt, history shows that it always does. Our political system is designed so that this revolt will be bloodless, but California may go so far that this check may not hold.


** Not to take this too far offtopic but those same bills prohibiting construction of new pipelines ALSO prohibit new jobs, depress economic activity, increase consumer costs for goods, and lead to less revenue for the State in both direct and indirect taxes. They, metaphorically, cut their own legislative throats with the new laws.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.

Last edited by rplaw; 09-11-2018 at 7:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-11-2018, 9:56 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Highly unlikely.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-14-2018, 7:27 AM
ulmapache's Avatar
ulmapache ulmapache is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gavin Newsome...and your point is?

Re: Felons in possession...
The federal gun laws prohibit possession of "any firearm or ammunition." 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). "Ammunition" is defined as "cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-18-2018, 7:04 AM
coryhenry's Avatar
coryhenry coryhenry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,282
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Update on the case the motion to dismiss for one count was granted but not on all the other counts, so this now moves forward.
__________________
Cory

"Every man dies, not every man really lives!"

Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-18-2018, 12:49 PM
B.J.F. B.J.F. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Mira Loma, CA
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If they would actually punish the criminals and add modifiers to sentences then the criminals would spend extra time behind bars not committing crimes outside the prison.

Rather they want to punish us and let criminals out early to save money on DOC budgets.
__________________
Countdown to being Texas Bound has begun!
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-18-2018, 2:30 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 842
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coryhenry View Post
Update on the case the motion to dismiss for one count was granted but not on all the other counts, so this now moves forward.
Motion for PI by plaintiffs?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-18-2018, 5:07 PM
adamkdoiron adamkdoiron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Quincy, CA
Posts: 154
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Edit: nvm, seems like good news.

Last edited by adamkdoiron; 10-18-2018 at 5:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-18-2018, 7:52 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,720
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coryhenry View Post
Update on the case the motion to dismiss for one count was granted but not on all the other counts, so this now moves forward.
So the equal protection claim (which seems weak anyway) was dismissed and the rest of the case moves on. That's good!
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:07 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.