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
  #761  
Old 06-28-2014, 12:21 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm pretty sure he's fully aware of my current thinking on SCOTUS.

Even if I'm not entirely right on SCOTUS, it should be plain to all by now that SCOTUS cannot be relied upon to right the ship.

That means we must concentrate on winning at the appellate level. We should, for our purposes, presume that the appeals courts, and not SCOTUS, are the "courts of last resort".
For your consideration: "What Does Noel Canning Have To Do With The Second Amendment?"

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/2014/0...ond-amendment/

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 06-28-2014, 1:18 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,963
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And how well is that cleanup action going? We lost Jackson v SF.
Here are two important facts that are often ignored when talking about Jackson: (1) The "lock" requirement has an exception for handguns carried on one's person, and (2) It's the *sale* of hollow point ammunition that is prohibited, not possession or use (yet).

Thus, Jackson is not a "keep" case. It's much more along the lines of the "third front" - battle to determine what "arms" are and what types of restrictions can be put on sale, shape and look of firearms.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 06-28-2014, 1:28 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Here are two important facts that are often ignored when talking about Jackson: (1) The "lock" requirement has an exception for handguns carried on one's person,
Hence, it's strictly about "keep", not "bear"...


Quote:
and (2) It's the *sale* of hollow point ammunition that is prohibited, not possession or use (yet).
One cannot possess that which one cannot first acquire. So is it expected that the hollow point ammunition will simply magically appear out of the aether?


Quote:
Thus, Jackson is not a "keep" case.
No, it is a "keep" case. It's just not a case about bans on "keep".
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 06-28-2014, 4:25 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
For your consideration: "What Does Noel Canning Have To Do With The Second Amendment?"

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/2014/0...ond-amendment/

-Brandon
That case should be a dire warning to all here for at least a couple of reasons.

For one, it illustrates the folly of believing that "dicta" is irrelevant. From Scalia's concurrence:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NLRB v Noel Canning Concurrence
Ignoring our more recent precedent in this area, which is extensive, the majority relies on The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689 (1929), for the proposition that when interpreting a constitutional provision “regulating the relationship between Congress and the President,” we must defer to the settled practice of the political branches if the provision is “‘“in any respect of doubtful meaning.”’” Ante, at 7; see ante, at 8, 16, 23, 33. The language the majority quotes from that case was pure dictum. The Pocket Veto Court had to decide whether a bill passed by the House and Senate and presented to the President less than 10 days before the adjournment of the first session of a particular Congress, but neither signed nor vetoed by the President, became a law. Most of the opinion analyzed that issue like any other legal question and concluded that treating the bill as a law would have been inconsistent with the text and structure of the Constitution. Only near the end of the opinion did the Court add that its conclu*sion was “confirmed” by longstanding Presidential practice in which Congress appeared to have acquiesced. 279 U. S., at 688–689. We did not suggest that the case would have come out differently had the longstanding practice been otherwise.
(emphasis mine)


For another, Kennedy joined the majority opinion in that case, not the concurrence. Kennedy here was content to ignore the text, tradition, and history of the Constitution in favor of the more typical handwaving that pervades the judiciary today, and which the majority in this case engages in.


Kennedy is quite clearly unreliable, perhaps to the point that he cannot be relied on to uphold even the Heller-like decision that is Peruta. If you wonder why SCOTUS has refused to grant cert to case after case involving the 2nd Amendment, one need only look at cases like this to understand. It is my view, on the basis of evidence such as this, that neither side believes it can count on his opinion. When Peruta finally makes its way to the Supreme Court, as it surely will, you should not be surprised in the slightest if the Supreme Court denies cert to it regardless of whether or not it had been overturned en banc at that point.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 06-28-2014 at 4:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 07-08-2014, 7:23 AM
jar jar is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Supplemental briefing filed yesterday. Attached is SAF'scaed-03307522334.pdf brief.
Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 07-08-2014, 10:56 AM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jar View Post
Supplemental briefing filed yesterday. Attached is SAF'sAttachment 338547 brief.
Plain and simple read, briefly restates the facts of why the individual "safety devices" and micro-stamping do not materially further a states cause.

Quote:
The Court’s June 5 order having invited additional “factual support,”
Plaintiffs now add the testimony and supporting exhibits of Lawrence Keane,
Secretary and General Counsel of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition
Manufacturers Institute (“SAAMI”),
A good independent name to have attached to the case, in my opinion at least. Can't get much more factual than the group that has standardized firearms specs for the last 100 years.
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 07-08-2014, 11:00 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,653
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Kennedy is quite clearly unreliable, perhaps to the point that he cannot be relied on to uphold even the Heller-like decision that is Peruta. If you wonder why SCOTUS has refused to grant cert to case after case involving the 2nd Amendment, one need only look at cases like this to understand. It is my view, on the basis of evidence such as this, that neither side believes it can count on his opinion. When Peruta finally makes its way to the Supreme Court, as it surely will, you should not be surprised in the slightest if the Supreme Court denies cert to it regardless of whether or not it had been overturned en banc at that point.

Well if cert only requires four judges the chances it will be taken are likely IMO. If Kennedy is as much as a wild card as you claim, then the anti/pro group of judges will have nothing to lose if their side doesn't come out ahead in the 9th's final ruling. It's that or risk a presidential election and new judges. The current court's make up is the best chance the losing side has.
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 07-08-2014, 12:40 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Well if cert only requires four judges the chances it will be taken are likely IMO. If Kennedy is as much as a wild card as you claim, then the anti/pro group of judges will have nothing to lose if their side doesn't come out ahead in the 9th's final ruling. It's that or risk a presidential election and new judges. The current court's make up is the best chance the losing side has.
That doesn't follow at all. For the antis, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th circuits remain anti-rights strongholds. If their side loses at the Supreme Court, then they lose all of those areas, plus any areas (like the 5th Circuit) that might side with them but which have not yet taken a case on the subject.

And clearly, if the pro-rights side loses, then it will have the effect of eliminating 2nd Amendment protection in public at the federal level, so there is quite a lot to be lost there as well.

No, with Kennedy being such an uncertainty, game theory works in favor of both sides leaving 2nd Amendment cases alone.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 07-09-2014, 6:38 PM
Bruce's Avatar
Bruce Bruce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,164
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I thought there was to be a decision on this by the end of June, or did I miss it?
__________________
GOD HAS SAVED THE UNITED STATES!
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 07-09-2014, 6:50 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,963
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
I thought there was to be a decision on this by the end of June, or did I miss it?
Most likely this summer or fall. There is no deadline.

The case is now fully briefed with the recent addition of microstamping filings (I believe they are all complete) and the ball is in judge's court. She can issue a ruling, or ask for more documentation. We expect the ruling, though.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #771  
Old 07-10-2014, 11:17 AM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 878
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
I thought there was to be a decision on this by the end of June, or did I miss it?

There will be a ruling before the end of June. We are not sure which June.
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 07-11-2014, 2:29 AM
antiseen's Avatar
antiseen antiseen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If we get a good ruling does it strike down the roster or does it only strike down microstamping?
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 07-11-2014, 4:35 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by antiseen View Post
If we get a good ruling does it strike down the roster or does it only strike down microstamping?

That would be the difference between a good ruling and a great ruling...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 07-11-2014, 9:24 AM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
That would be the difference between a good ruling and a great ruling...
Yeah, and I feel like the only reason so much time is passing is so that the judge can come up with ANY reason to only give us a "good" ruling.

It's obvious that micro-stamping is not implementable soon, maybe not ever without a fundamental change in how a handgun operates. But I'm sure that the judge is going to find reasoning to keep the roster mostly intact.

"They don't want guns to go off when dropped? Sure! That's a valid safety concern. They want a banner to show when a gun is loaded? Sure! That's a valid safety concern. Ok, the micro-stamping thing was premature, lets strike that one."

And thus the roster doesn't change, not really. The judge will use some kind of intermediate scrutiny to let most of it pass. Just prepare for this to drag through a couple more years of appeals.
Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old 07-11-2014, 9:33 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,963
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by antiseen View Post
If we get a good ruling does it strike down the roster or does it only strike down microstamping?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
That would be the difference between a good ruling and a great ruling...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post
Yeah, and I feel like the only reason so much time is passing is so that the judge can come up with ANY reason to only give us a "good" ruling.
One of the plaintiffs is missing an arm and wants to buy an ambidextrous Glock Gen-4 which doesn't have any of magazine disconnect, LCI or microstamping. The court filings address how studying material for HSC explicitly calls for "not trusting any mechanical device" for safety reasons, while the law forces LCI as a safety device.

It would be very far fetched to expect just microstamping to be stricken down since it wouldn't even alleviate plaintiff's legal injury.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by IVC; 07-12-2014 at 12:24 AM.. Reason: grammar, auto correct
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 07-11-2014, 9:40 AM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
One of the plaintiffs is missing an arm and wants to buy an ambidextrous Glock Gen-4 which doesn't have any of magazine disconnect, LCI or microstamping. The court filing address how studying material for HSC explicitly calls for "not trusting any mechanical device" for safety reasons, while the law forces LCI as a safety device.

It would be very far fetched to expect just microstamping to be stricken down since it wouldn't even alleviate plaintiff's legal injury.
I had forgotten that aspect of the case. This will be interesting either way, the disability adds another twist the judge needs to deal with...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 07-11-2014, 11:13 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

I did my quantum-mechanical part today and bought an off-roster pistol with some of those “large-capacity magazines” for good measure.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 07-12-2014, 8:21 AM
mp9mm mp9mm is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

^^^i did the same today.
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 07-18-2014, 1:56 PM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,951
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any thoughts on if AB 1964 will have any effect on this ruling? I was thinking that possibly the judge might rule against if SSE remained in tact, thinking that plaintiff could just buy via SSE. But now that SSE is gone via Jan 1, then maybe it helps demonstrate the roster really is a de facto handgun ban?
Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 07-18-2014, 2:09 PM
thayne's Avatar
thayne thayne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skilletboy View Post
Any thoughts on if AB 1964 will have any effect on this ruling? I was thinking that possibly the judge might rule against if SSE remained in tact, thinking that plaintiff could just buy via SSE. But now that SSE is gone via Jan 1, then maybe it helps demonstrate the roster really is a de facto handgun ban?
Thats what im thinking. Same effect that banning open carry had on Peruta
__________________
Quote:
"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."
Reply With Quote
  #781  
Old 07-18-2014, 2:10 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,137
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
I did my quantum-mechanical part today and bought an off-roster pistol with some of those “large-capacity magazines” for good measure.
Picked up my Glock 42, but it only holds 6 rounds
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #782  
Old 07-18-2014, 2:12 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skilletboy View Post
Any thoughts on if AB 1964 will have any effect on this ruling? I was thinking that possibly the judge might rule against if SSE remained in tact, thinking that plaintiff could just buy via SSE. But now that SSE is gone via Jan 1, then maybe it helps demonstrate the roster really is a de facto handgun ban?
No, SSE was never really a legit path around the roster. Microstamping on the other hand ultimately turns the roster into a near total ban.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 07-18-2014, 3:08 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
No, SSE was never really a legit path around the roster. Microstamping on the other hand ultimately turns the roster into a near total ban.
Despite that I would expect to see supplemental briefings if Brown signs the bill killing SSE. Remember that the district judge in Peruta claimed that UNLOADED carry was sufficient to fulfill the 2A right to arms in the case of confrontation. I can certainly see a judge making a similarly bad ruling here.
Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 07-18-2014, 3:22 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

That's because the government made the argument that UOC was sufficient. And that ruling was made while UOC was still legal. No one ever argued that SSE was sufficient, and a ruling suggesting as much now that SSE is to be banned would make no sense. SSE is a dead issue.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #785  
Old 07-18-2014, 4:11 PM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: equestria
Posts: 6,344
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So SSE is gone.let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
__________________
best troll thread in calguns history
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739



Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Not at all. Trump is a loser and will lose amazingly on Tuesday. It's going to be so big, we are all going to be sick and tired of how much he loses on Tuesday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Nah, no sense in replying to the personal attacks/baiting.
Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 07-18-2014, 4:54 PM
meaty-btz's Avatar
meaty-btz meaty-btz is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,995
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
So SSE is gone.let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
hahahahahahah... ehem.. hahahahahahahaha....
Rights? What Rights?
__________________
...but their exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.
Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 07-18-2014, 5:49 PM
bajadan bajadan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 768
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Wish all MFG. would drop pistol sales now. let the dark period commence.
Reply With Quote
  #788  
Old 07-18-2014, 6:10 PM
LoneYote's Avatar
LoneYote LoneYote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 614
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
So SSE is gone.let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
mind if I use the bold in as a sig line? Mind fixing a couple things?
__________________
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Need we have a moderator behind every blade of grass?
Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 07-18-2014, 8:35 PM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: equestria
Posts: 6,344
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneYote View Post
mind if I use the bold in as a sig line? Mind fixing a couple things?
go ahead and use it.
__________________
best troll thread in calguns history
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739



Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Not at all. Trump is a loser and will lose amazingly on Tuesday. It's going to be so big, we are all going to be sick and tired of how much he loses on Tuesday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Nah, no sense in replying to the personal attacks/baiting.
Reply With Quote
  #790  
Old 07-19-2014, 3:27 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What's a 'tuttle'?
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #791  
Old 07-19-2014, 4:31 AM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: equestria
Posts: 6,344
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
What's a 'tuttle'?
it is a turtle that is addicted to heroin. its very slow and falls asleep often. it will do anything to get hit of sweet lady H so it will often turn to prostitution for quick cash. when the tuttle becomes unattractive and cant manage to pull in the most desperate of clients, the tuttle will try to rob a liquor store where it will be shot dead by a armed clerk. the tuttle will die alone with no money to its name and nobody left that will morn the loss of a creature that once had a promising future.

so you see, a tuttle was a turtle that got sidetracked along the way, it slowed down and eventually could not lift its legs. it just sits there asking for donations and saying "things will get better soon, i am just taking a rest. you know, lettin this other turtle do his thing. i'll get up soon, just not now man. just send some of these emails to the jackrabbit, yeah man that will work. i'll rest here just send some emails or stuff. like you dont even have to write them out yourself man, it already made just sign your name and send. he will see this mountain of emails that are exactly the same and be like wow i gotta listen and stuff. now how about that spare quarter you got in your pocket?" any more questions?
__________________
best troll thread in calguns history
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739



Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Not at all. Trump is a loser and will lose amazingly on Tuesday. It's going to be so big, we are all going to be sick and tired of how much he loses on Tuesday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Nah, no sense in replying to the personal attacks/baiting.

Last edited by mossy; 07-19-2014 at 4:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #792  
Old 07-23-2014, 12:24 AM
segfault segfault is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 145
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Sorry, new to this thread, the last update from the CFG wiki is:

Quote:
October 25/26, 2013: Each party filed notice that it will move for summary judgement (or summary adjudication) on Nov 22, 2013.
What happened on Nov 22, 2013?
Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 07-23-2014, 12:50 AM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: equestria
Posts: 6,344
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by segfault View Post
Sorry, new to this thread, the last update from the CFG wiki is:



What happened on Nov 22, 2013?
whatever happened, it definitely was not a "summary judgment" lol.
__________________
best troll thread in calguns history
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739



Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Not at all. Trump is a loser and will lose amazingly on Tuesday. It's going to be so big, we are all going to be sick and tired of how much he loses on Tuesday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Nah, no sense in replying to the personal attacks/baiting.
Reply With Quote
  #794  
Old 07-23-2014, 12:56 AM
HibikiR HibikiR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: LA County
Posts: 1,466
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Dunno, but the case is now Peña v. Lindley (the guy who took over for Cid)

Last I heard the judge ordered both parties to examine the microstamping requiremet of the roster to see if it constitutes a de facto ban on unrostered handguns and if it doesn't then to determine the extent of the burden it creates on our 2A rights.

Depending on the judge's train of thought and as long as no company produces microstamping parts then things may be looking up.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2006&as_vis=1
Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 07-23-2014, 1:05 AM
segfault segfault is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 145
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Looks like it spent most of the past 5 years stayed on other cases that aren't much related to the roster...

Got some support from Glock
I recently read Glock: Rise of America's Gun. Hope Glock can keep up its fortune in the political game.

Interesting infographic from this article:


Last edited by segfault; 07-23-2014 at 1:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 07-23-2014, 1:46 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,371
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by segfault View Post
Sorry, new to this thread, the last update from the CFG wiki is:



What happened on Nov 22, 2013?
The wiki links to the RECAP docket, http://ia600204.us.archive.org/23/it...44.docket.html, which has more recent info.

As ordered on 6/6, each party filed briefs on 7/7, principally about microstamping.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 07-23-2014, 2:01 AM
segfault segfault is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 145
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HibikiR View Post
Thanks for the link.

Quote:
issues: (1) whether the microstamping requirement, CAL. PENAL CODE § 31910(b)(7)(A), of the California Unsafe Handgun Act ("UHA") amounts to a de facto ban of unrostered weapons to which the requirement applies
Sounds like a ban de jure, not just de facto!
Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 07-23-2014, 10:24 AM
Big Ben's Avatar
Big Ben Big Ben is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 713
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by segfault View Post
Looks like it spent most of the past 5 years stayed on other cases that aren't much related to the roster...

Got some support from Glock
I recently read Glock: Rise of America's Gun. Hope Glock can keep up its fortune in the political game.

Interesting infographic from this article:

This infographic doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why it projects that available handguns will trend to 0 by 2021-23. If the microstamping requirement does not apply to revolvers, there is nothing to prevent revolver manufacturers from renewing, even if they make changes that require retesting. I'm also aware that both S&W and Ruger (two of the largest revolver manufactueres) have said they're no longer going to be able to register pistols due to the microstamping requirement, but I'm not certain that they're going to stop registering revolvers.

While I understand and agree with the sentiment/concern presented in the graphic, I believe that the graphic would be more accurate if the trend lines dropped into the ~200 revolver range, and then went basically flat.
Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 07-23-2014, 10:30 AM
meaty-btz's Avatar
meaty-btz meaty-btz is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,995
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Ben View Post
This infographic doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why it projects that available handguns will trend to 0 by 2021-23. If the microstamping requirement does not apply to revolvers, there is nothing to prevent revolver manufacturers from renewing, even if they make changes that require retesting. I'm also aware that both S&W and Ruger (two of the largest revolver manufactueres) have said they're no longer going to be able to register pistols due to the microstamping requirement, but I'm not certain that they're going to stop registering revolvers.

While I understand and agree with the sentiment/concern presented in the graphic, I believe that the graphic would be more accurate if the trend lines dropped into the ~200 revolver range, and then went basically flat.
S&W revolvers are in fact, falling off the list. Go look up the thread with the monthly losses.
__________________
...but their exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.
Reply With Quote
  #800  
Old 07-23-2014, 10:45 AM
HibikiR HibikiR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: LA County
Posts: 1,466
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Maybe they're predicting more asinine laws, like microstamping for revolvers sometime in the next decade.
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 5:39 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.