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
  #601  
Old 10-13-2017, 2:19 PM
El Viajero El Viajero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 8
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any updates?
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 10-14-2017, 1:16 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

DPRK got an extension of time to file their brief.

IOW:
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 10-18-2017, 5:43 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 862
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ion-Appeal.pdf

Opening Brief got filed
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 10-18-2017, 5:52 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

DPRK is trying to argue that the mag ban is not a 'taking', when that is exactly what it is.

Anywhere else, we would be on solid ground. I would guess that CA9 is going to vacate the stay (if not at the 3 judge panel, then en banc).

Welcome to the slippery slope. Mag ban today; AW ban is next.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 10-18-2017, 7:36 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,910
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

they argue provable bull****
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:26 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 98
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've only just started reading but this:

"Not only does this capability enable an individual to kill and injure more people in a short period of time, it also makes it unnecessary to stop and reload, thereby...eliminating pauses that allow law enforcement or bystanders to intervene and victims to escape or hide...LCMs thus appear to be the weapon of choice for anyone determined to inflict maximum damage on as many people as possible."

What bystanders? Intervene how? You mean those bystanders who, if you had your way, would all be unarmed? Those bystanders?

I also object to the argument that they can/should be banned because they are the " weapon of choice". That argument never ends and can be applied to anything. Even if they are the weapon of choice and you can effectively eliminate them, something else will simply become the weapon of choice, and then you can ban them, etc. Even in an environment of an almost total weapons ban, trucks have now become the weapon of choice in Europe. Are they any safer?
__________________
The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 10-19-2017, 7:50 AM
coryhenry's Avatar
coryhenry coryhenry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,243
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

I see us having to register magazines in the future that we have had for decades.
__________________
Cory

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

Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 10-19-2017, 8:59 AM
flyer898's Avatar
flyer898 flyer898 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fair Oaks
Posts: 884
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Let me see, weapon of choice - for those who are already prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition, and magazines.
__________________
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain
"One argues to a judge, one does not argue with a judge." Me
"Never argue unless you are getting paid." CDAA
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 10-19-2017, 12:03 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coryhenry View Post
I see us having to register magazines in the future that we have had for decades.
Why bother with registration when they can be outright banned?
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 10-23-2017, 7:55 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A major fallacy is they believe their own BS. High cap mags have been illegal to anything but own for a long time, therefore it is an insignificant change to make them illegal to possess.
Trouble is, every gun owner I know has high cap mags, I think you would find that those without them to be a small minority.

It's a bit like trying to go light speed, that last little bit, is really hard.


You can also estimate the magnitude of this taking by asking, how many LCMs (low capacity magazines) will Californians have to buy if this law goes into effect?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 10-23-2017, 8:06 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,225
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

The ban itself was meaningless considering that no one could ever verify hen the mags were purchased. Thus the confusion over mag rebuild kits, because they knew people could legally order them and then just assemble them and claim it was pre 99.

To follow the whole story you have to consider that their argument is that it's a public safety issue. Since that is the most asinine concept to begin with, you have to look for the specific reason behind the reason, which is to suppress gun sales and gun culture. They know people who buy this stuff are also largely conservative and Republican, so there is the recipe for your proxy war.

Similar to those on the Right that pushed for hyper criminalizing marijuana back in the day. That was completely due to politics and the fact that everyone who smoked was a hipped in the 60's and 70's. If you wanted to blast the Left and make them pay then anything anti-weed was a gold mine.

Only answer is to de-politicize guns, which no one seems to be interested in. Especially when there is an entire industry built around the issue, both pro and con.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 10-24-2017, 11:29 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,910
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

^^^this^^^

Our reigning kleptocracy is all about manufacturing new rights for favored groups (LGBTQ, "undocumented", public sector employees - people who will be reliable voters for them) and carrying out pogroms against disfavored groups (gun owners, people who drive cars, taxpayers, etc. - people who might have the unmitigated gall not to vote for them)
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 10-24-2017, 1:25 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Only answer is to de-politicize guns, which no one seems to be interested in. Especially when there is an entire industry built around the issue, both pro and con.
No truer words have ever been said/posted.
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 10-24-2017, 2:02 PM
machrono's Avatar
machrono machrono is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 600
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This latest CA filing is factually incorrect as it claims that Federal law regulates “large capacity magazines”, when in fact, the Federal regulation they refer to was the now expired 1994-2004 AWB, so in fact Federal law does NOT regulate them! Misleading at best or possibly dishonest. Plaintiffs should point that out to the court.
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 10-24-2017, 6:07 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,843
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by machrono View Post
This latest CA filing is factually incorrect as it claims that Federal law regulates “large capacity magazines”, when in fact, the Federal regulation they refer to was the now expired 1994-2004 AWB, so in fact Federal law does NOT regulate them! Misleading at best or possibly dishonest. Plaintiffs should point that out to the court.
vs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA filing
The Federal Ban, which also prohibited the possession or transfer of assault weapons (except those manufactured before 1994), expired in 2004.
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 10-25-2017, 10:43 AM
jrr jrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 569
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's still misleading, as the federal "ban" allowed the continued use, possession, sale, transfer of LCM made prior to the date of the ban. The CA statute is being challenged specifically because they crossed that line and revoked the grandfather clause.

ETA-- After reading again, they do mention that magazines possessed prior to the ban could be kept. What they fail to mention is that there was also no restriction on the sale, transfer, giving, use, etc. of the "pre ban" magazines. Also, even if you had never owned a standard cap mag prior to the ban, you could buy one so long as it was made prior to the ban. So really, there has only ever been Federal legislation governing the sale or transfer of NEW LCM, which as we all know means there never really was a ban at all for all practical purposes. So I still maintain that is highly misleading to say that "LCMs have been heavily regulated (Federally) in the United States for decades", which is what the brief claims.

It would be more accurate to say that over a decade ago there was some amount of Federal regulation of new magazines, but that the regulation was only in effect for ten years and never really had any effect on the number of "high capacity" magazines on the market. Hardly a "long standing regulation" under Heller.

Last edited by jrr; 10-26-2017 at 9:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 10-25-2017, 12:01 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Why were LCM not banned from possession from the start? Whatever reason they were not is still valid today.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 10-25-2017, 12:35 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 139
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Why were LCM not banned from possession from the start? Whatever reason they were not is still valid today.
You would need to ask the legislature why they do what they do.

My guess is the know it is a 'taking' thus to be legal they would need to compensate everyone for each magazine. In short they didn't want to pay for it. People are happy to enact useless gun laws when they cost them nothing. If it wasn't going to cost the state several million to buy all these magazines it wouldn't be so popular.
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 10-25-2017, 2:06 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,910
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Why were Standard Capacity Magazines LCM not banned from possession from the start? Whatever reason they were not is still valid today.
Fixed it for you
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 10-26-2017, 9:33 PM
RECCE556's Avatar
RECCE556 RECCE556 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: X████████████a
Posts: 1,242
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

Maybe we should use:

Standard Capacity Magazines = SCM

and

Restricted Capacity Magazines = RCM

Just a humble suggestion...
__________________
“The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory.” - Aldo Gucci
Reply With Quote
  #621  
Old 10-26-2017, 9:46 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,263
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RECCE556 View Post
Maybe we should use:

Standard Capacity Magazines = SCM

and

Restricted Capacity Magazines = RCM

Just a humble suggestion...
Not a useful one in legal discussions in CA.

We already have a legal definition - 'large-capacity magazine', reasonably abbreviated LCM.
__________________
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
  #622  
Old 10-26-2017, 9:50 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RECCE556 View Post
Maybe we should use:

Standard Capacity Magazines = SCM

and

Restricted Capacity Magazines = RCM

Just a humble suggestion...
The problem is that there are a number of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. For example, Sig sold the P226 with 'standard' magazines having a 15 round (9 mm) capacity. Sig also sold accessory magazines for the P226 with a capacity of 20 (9 mm) rounds. Similar circumstances exist for Glock (if memory serves, Glock offers a magazine with a 30 round capacity ) ; I suspect the same applies to other manufacturers. What magazine capacity does your proposed SCM designation apply to (with the understanding that all magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds are banned)?

As Librarian posts above, the LCM designation seems to be a better one.
Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 10-26-2017, 10:13 PM
RECCE556's Avatar
RECCE556 RECCE556 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: X████████████a
Posts: 1,242
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Not a useful one in legal discussions in CA.

We already have a legal definition - 'large-capacity magazine', reasonably abbreviated LCM.
Ok, I'll just go back to lurking...
__________________
“The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory.” - Aldo Gucci
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 10-26-2017, 11:48 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
You would need to ask the legislature why they do what they do.

My guess is the know it is a 'taking' thus to be legal they would need to compensate everyone for each magazine. In short they didn't want to pay for it. People are happy to enact useless gun laws when they cost them nothing. If it wasn't going to cost the state several million to buy all these magazines it wouldn't be so popular.
Yup they do seem to like not giving money back.

Should be a record of discussion? SB23.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 10-27-2017, 4:27 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 139
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Yup they do seem to like not giving money back.

Should be a record of discussion? SB23.
Why would they discuss this in an open session knowing it would be recorded. It will be nothing but "we are doing this for the children"
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 10-27-2017, 8:21 AM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Why would they discuss this in an open session knowing it would be recorded. It will be nothing but "we are doing this for the children"
Was this passed on party lines? Found the vote records.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 10-27-2017, 9:24 AM
heyjerr's Avatar
heyjerr heyjerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 913
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Yup they do seem to like not giving money back.

Should be a record of discussion? SB23.
It's not a buyback if I didn't buy from the government. It's a taking.
Like "gun buybacks", it's a misnomer meant to help subjects swallow subjugation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 10-30-2017, 4:37 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 9
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

As I read this, the takings ground is largely superfluous because Benitez determined the statute violated the 2A. Therefore, if we get lucky with the merits panel and get Callahan and Bea or something to that effect and Benitez's ruling is upheld (and they refuse to take it up en banc), wouldn't this pave the road to a very strong challenge to the ban on sale and transfer of standard capacity mags? I know there's a lot of ifs to get to that point, but...
Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 11-01-2017, 9:30 PM
Bogart's Avatar
Bogart Bogart is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 300
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

What about all of us who converted our mags to 10 rounds or sold them prior to the law going into affect, and now cannot buy or convert back legally? Will there be any compensation for the loss?

What’s the possibility of some sort of class action lawsuit if this law gets repealed?

Last edited by Bogart; 11-01-2017 at 9:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 11-01-2017, 10:09 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
As I read this, the takings ground is largely superfluous because Benitez determined the statute violated the 2A. Therefore, if we get lucky with the merits panel and get Callahan and Bea or something to that effect and Benitez's ruling is upheld (and they refuse to take it up en banc), wouldn't this pave the road to a very strong challenge to the ban on sale and transfer of standard capacity mags? I know there's a lot of ifs to get to that point, but...
I suspect the pre-existing ban would remain in place because it applies to new magazine purchases; magazines with capacity >10 rounds were grandfathered. This litigation relates to the attempted overreach of revoking the grandfather clause.
Reply With Quote
  #631  
Old 11-02-2017, 9:28 AM
heyjerr's Avatar
heyjerr heyjerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 913
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogart View Post
What about all of us who converted our mags to 10 rounds or sold them prior to the law going into affect, and now cannot buy or convert back legally? Will there be any compensation for the loss?

What’s the possibility of some sort of class action lawsuit if this law gets repealed?
I wouldn't hold your breath. They'll just take it as a "victory" and keep on trying to take even more.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 11-02-2017, 4:12 PM
splithoof splithoof is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 930
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If it gets repealed, I'll start drilling out rivets.
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 11-03-2017, 5:59 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,164
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Why were LCM not banned from possession from the start? Whatever reason they were not is still valid today.
It was considered too extreme because it is. Pure appeasement directed at armed citizens, as it could have jeopardized, the passage of California's ban on "assault weapons." Where people were assured that they could keep them if they already owned them. It was very controversial to begin with. Imagine a time when California was more like normal America? That's why.

Consider this a teachable part of history. The gun control left, is not going to stop, because what they want is to ban gun ownership. Why there can be no compromise if citizens want to retain their constitutional rights.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 11-13-2017, 11:24 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 862
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The answering brief gets filed today
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 10:04 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.