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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601  
Old 05-16-2019, 6:33 PM
green grunt's Avatar
green grunt green grunt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Left Coast..middle end side
Posts: 1,033
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

^ gun control advocates see the writing on the wall and are panicked.


I like the sound of that !
__________________
Semper Fi.
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 05-16-2019, 8:18 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
If this was just about right to travel to your other home with a legally acquired firearm, it would have been overturned like Caetano and done nothing to expand the status quo. The fact that they granted cert means they are considering raising the baseline for infringement. Where they will put that base no one knows, but the huge flush of amici briefs is a good indication gun control advocates see the writing on the wall and are panicked.
Let’s not call them gun control advocates. Let’s call them gun confiscation advocates. And hoplophobes. And pandering *******s... err, politicians.
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 05-17-2019, 9:29 AM
Lovesick Warrior Lovesick Warrior is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 90
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If only 3 transportation options are legal to NYC gun owners, namely:

To a gunsmith (with permission)
To a NYC shooting range
To a hunting area (with permission)

Is the gun owner in violation of the law when they bring the newly purchased gun home from the gun shop??
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 05-17-2019, 9:52 AM
Cavalier Knight's Avatar
Cavalier Knight Cavalier Knight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: New York NY
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovesick Warrior View Post
If only 3 transportation options are legal to NYC gun owners, namely:

To a gunsmith (with permission)
To a NYC shooting range
To a hunting area (with permission)

Is the gun owner in violation of the law when they bring the newly purchased gun home from the gun shop??
No after purchasing the firearm you have 72 hours to bring it to 1 Police Plaza for inspection.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:15 AM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 954
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I was especially pleased to see this in the brief from the United States:
Quote:
In Heller, this Court explained that the Second
Amendment guarantees “the individual right to possess
and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” without
suggesting that the guarantee is limited to the home.
554 U.S. at 592. The Court’s references to the “core” of
the Second Amendment served to distinguish self-defense
from other lawful purposes such as hunting, not to distinguish the home from places outside the home. The
Court thus explained that “self-defense” is “the central
component of the right,” id. at 599; that the “right of
self-defense” is “central to the Second Amendment
right,” id. at 628; and that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to use firearms “for the core lawful purpose of self-defense,” id. at 630. In McDonald v. City
of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Court reaffirmed
that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’
of the Second Amendment right” and that the “ ‘inherent
right of self-defense [is] central to the Second Amendment right.’” Id. at 767 (citations omitted). In neither
case did the Court suggest that the right to keep and
bear arms is limited to the home.
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:52 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 560
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm surprised at how many briefs are basically looking this as a "bear" AND "infringement" case.

The law in question obviously violates the 2A based on "bear". But, the deeper issue that keeps cropping up is the "2-step" and how the Courts are using that method to allow unfettered "infringements".

If the SCOTUS deems this case one in which it needs to spank the lower courts, the rationale behind those "infringements" will be the vehicle it will have to use. As such, those 4 little words at the end of the Amendment become much more important.

Can even strict scrutiny survive "shall not be infringed"? Because of those 4 words, is there an even higher standard that MUST be used for 2A cases that is not applicable for other enumerated Rights which don't have that specific limitation expressed in them?

For purposes of debate, could we assert that such an Uninfringible standard is required? Would such an argument succeed? Doubtful, in my opinion even if the plain wording of the text appears to compel such a standard.

On the other hand, could we create a test in which "core" elements of the Right are Uninfringible, with a lower standard of Strict Scrutiny for those other elements not directly within the core of the Right?

Core elements such as keep and bear and any other legal or lawful use by the public would be "unfringible" while the "non-core" elements regarding purchase, shipping, storage, etc would be "Strict Scrutiny" level "regulations".

Would such a new look at the entire Amendment under those 2 standards alleviate the issues we are seeing by those States and Courts which do not wish to adhere to precedent and protect the guarantees enumerated in the Constitution and BoR?

To me, it would be refreshing for people and legal scholars to stop parroting the tired memes of the past and actually look at the current 2A mess with an eye toward fixing it so that the Right is as envisioned by the Framers while also ensuring that lawful infringements by the Government are considered and taken into account.

I am hoping, but not optimistic because far too often the petty bickering of man interferes with clarity and union of purpose, that this is the case SCOTUS will use to do that.
__________________
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; 05-17-2019 at 11:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:06 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 793
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

No, the bar will not be set that high, Roberts won't allow it. NFA/GCA will survive in whatever decision is produced.
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:51 AM
putput's Avatar
putput putput is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Thanks Otis, Thanks Alan!
Posts: 770
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

This. Someone write a friend of the court brief, stat!



Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
I'm surprised at how many briefs are basically looking this as a "bear" AND "infringement" case.

The law in question obviously violates the 2A based on "bear". But, the deeper issue that keeps cropping up is the "2-step" and how the Courts are using that method to allow unfettered "infringements".

If the SCOTUS deems this case one in which it needs to spank the lower courts, the rationale behind those "infringements" will be the vehicle it will have to use. As such, those 4 little words at the end of the Amendment become much more important.

Can even strict scrutiny survive "shall not be infringed"? Because of those 4 words, is there an even higher standard that MUST be used for 2A cases that is not applicable for other enumerated Rights which don't have that specific limitation expressed in them?

For purposes of debate, could we assert that such an Uninfringible standard is required? Would such an argument succeed? Doubtful, in my opinion even if the plain wording of the text appears to compel such a standard.

On the other hand, could we create a test in which "core" elements of the Right are Uninfringible, with a lower standard of Strict Scrutiny for those other elements not directly within the core of the Right?

Core elements such as keep and bear and any other legal or lawful use by the public would be "unfringible" while the "non-core" elements regarding purchase, shipping, storage, etc would be "Strict Scrutiny" level "regulations".

Would such a new look at the entire Amendment under those 2 standards alleviate the issues we are seeing by those States and Courts which do not wish to adhere to precedent and protect the guarantees enumerated in the Constitution and BoR?

To me, it would be refreshing for people and legal scholars to stop parroting the tired memes of the past and actually look at the current 2A mess with an eye toward fixing it so that the Right is as envisioned by the Framers while also ensuring that lawful infringements by the Government are considered and taken into account.

I am hoping, but not optimistic because far too often the petty bickering of man interferes with clarity and union of purpose, that this is the case SCOTUS will use to do that.
__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe

Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 05-17-2019, 2:31 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,190
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
For purposes of debate, could we assert that such an Uninfringible standard is required? Would such an argument succeed? Doubtful, in my opinion even if the plain wording of the text appears to compel such a standard.

On the other hand, could we create a test in which "core" elements of the Right are Uninfringible, with a lower standard of Strict Scrutiny for those other elements not directly within the core of the Right?
Invariably all regulations survive the lowest standard, rational basis. Rarely does a regulation, impairing a fundamental right, survive strict scrutiny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-19-2019 at 5:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 05-17-2019, 6:14 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 560
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
No, the bar will not be set that high, Roberts won't allow it. NFA/GCA will survive in whatever decision is produced.
There is a possible argument that "core" Rights wouldn't be affected, (readiness and capability for Militia service, Individual Right of the People, Keep / Bear, ARMS in common use (not just guns), etc) by these 2 sets of laws because of the type of weapons and the Gov interest in reducing crime. If that argument is successful, both would survive under Strict Scrutiny since the Gov would have a compelling interest in specifically limiting public ownership of NFA arms due to the "dangerous and unusual" standard. Note; this wouldn't apply to general arms since they don't fit within this category. The GCA would probably be Ok as well since it's really the vehicle for tracking arms and keeping prohibited persons, who wouldn't be eligible for protection under this Amendment, from obtaining arms. Background checks would probably fly too for the same reason. Red flag laws probably wouldn't.

Both the NFA/GCA are broad but when viewed in the light most positive for them, they are narrowly tailored to do exactly what they are intended to do. I would have no issues with those 2 laws as written being upheld under the Strict Scrutiny standard. I think they easily fit within the intended framework of that standard.

Waiting periods are a different animal and probably wouldn't survive SS but the Courts would have to look at it and see if there is a legit basis and whether the laws fit within the requirement for SS.

Mag capacity limits, storage laws, limits on ammo purchase amounts/ID cards, bans on interstate shipping, firearms rosters, and bans/serializing requirements for "home-made" firearms are all deep direct infringements on the "core" Rights in the Amendment. As such they should fail the "uninfringible" test.
__________________
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; 05-17-2019 at 6:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 05-17-2019, 6:27 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 47
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Another amicus brief in support from Tuesday has been posted to the Supreme Court's website:

Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al.
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 05-23-2019, 7:00 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Another amicus brief in support from Tuesday has been posted to the Supreme Court's website:

Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al.
I find this interesting:

Quote:
The following eighteen law enforcement groups and state and local firearms rights groups are amici curiae in this case:
National Sheriffs’ Association
Western States Sheriffs’ Association California State Sheriffs’ Association
Indiana Sheriffs’ Association
New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association International Law Enforcement Educators and
Trainers Association
Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund International Association of Law Enforcement
Firearms Instructors, Inc.
Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club, Ltd.
Buckeye Firearms Association
Connecticut Citizens Defense League
Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association
Gun Owners’ Action League Massachusetts Maryland State Rifle & Pistol Association
Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs
Vermont State Rifle & Pistol Association
Virginia Shooting Sports Association
Quote:
In sum, when looking at the early statutes and case law regarding carry, the courts were uniform in acknowledging that citizens had a right to carry handguns, either openly, concealed, or both.
As an association the California Sherrifs supports CCW, yet we still have so many tough counties with may issue permits.

Last edited by ShadowGuy; 05-23-2019 at 7:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 05-23-2019, 8:16 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,130
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
I find this interesting:
As an association the California Sherrifs supports CCW, yet we still have so many tough counties with may issue permits.
It's not that's there that many tough counties, it's that the counties that are tough have most of the population.

From the 2017 map:
9 virtually no issue
4 exceptional good cause required
2 heightened good cause required
6 reasonable good cause required
35 self defense/relaxed good cause required

56.52% live in no issue/exceptional/heightened good cause required counties
43.48% live in reasonable/relaxed good cause required counties

http://baggss.us/

I know there's a more recent map somewhere, can't find it right now though.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 05-23-2019, 9:40 AM
timdps timdps is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,223
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Political sherrifs that want to keep their jobs...


T
__________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies." - George Washington, 1790
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 05-23-2019, 9:58 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
It's not that's there that many tough counties, it's that the counties that are tough have most of the population.

From the 2017 map:
9 virtually no issue
4 exceptional good cause required
2 heightened good cause required
6 reasonable good cause required
35 self defense/relaxed good cause required

56.52% live in no issue/exceptional/heightened good cause required counties
43.48% live in reasonable/relaxed good cause required counties

http://baggss.us/

I know there's a more recent map somewhere, can't find it right now though.
That county breakdown and the pop. stats are old: after SD Co went to light green, >1/2 of CA's pop. lives in a green county.

baggss has made it so that when the map is updated, the older linked image is automatically updated. The image on that link is up-to-date. Here it is embedded. We keep slowly winning without any losses.

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 05-23-2019 at 10:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 05-23-2019, 10:02 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,130
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
That county breakdown and the pop. stats are old: after SD Co went to light green, >1/2 of CA's pop. lives in a green county.

baggss has made it so that when the map is updated, the older linked image is automatically updated. The image on that link is up-to-date. Here it is embedded. FWIW, don't be surprised if, in the next update, Yolo Co is light green and Sonoma Co may even go dark green. We have some indications of that, but at this time making those changes would be premature. Either way, we keep slowly winning without any losses.

Thanks, I should stop trying to do things from my phone.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 05-23-2019, 10:18 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As a good reminder that we really have made a lot of progress in the past 10 years, despite SCOTUS relative silence since Heller/McDonald, compare the CA CCW GC map to the way things were back in 2009.

We're beating the antis against the ropes!

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 05-23-2019, 11:12 AM
DanMedeiros DanMedeiros is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can't wait to ask Sheriff Hart (Santa Cruz) why he disagrees with the CA Sheriffs' association on shall issue
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 05-23-2019, 11:46 AM
timdps timdps is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,223
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

The walls are closing in! On the recalcitrant counties that is...

T

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
As a good reminder that we really have made a lot of progress in the past 10 years, despite SCOTUS relative silence since Heller/McDonald, compare the CA CCW GC map to the way things were back in 2009.

We're beating the antis against the ropes!
__________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies." - George Washington, 1790
Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 05-23-2019, 3:21 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,156
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
We're beating the antis against the ropes!
Push that read and yellow **** into the Pacific.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #621  
Old 05-25-2019, 3:10 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by workin it View Post
In February every Sheriff in California met to discuss CCW's and each others methods of administering the program.
Me thinks this meeting either may have been motivated by, or was influenced by SCOTUS granting cert in NYSRPA on 2019 Jan 22.

Plus, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh got on SCOTUS and there was the ongoing drama with RBG's health at the time.

Maybe the remaining restrictive issuance sheriffs will liberalize their GC standards and liberalize issuance to try to head off LOC meet ups, rallies, and marches.
The more I think about this post by workin it, the more important I think it is. That's why I'm cross posting it here.

To have a meeting of all CA sheriffs re. "CCW's and each others methods of administering the program" is huge for those who care about CCWs in CA. Why would they do that? It would not make sense if liberal issuance counties wanted to restrict issuance, they all know how to do that: tighten up GC and reduce CCW processing staff. IMO, it makes the most sense if the anti sheriffs are concerned about how to issue a TON of CCWs quickly. In that case, the remaining anti sheriffs want to learn the best practices of places like OC, Kern, Fresno, Sacto, Shasta and newbie San Diego.

Here's the interesting part. Why would the anti sheriffs want to do that???

My guess is that their sheriff's association lawyers told them we'll probably win NYSRPA (and Rogers, if it gets taken too), and we'll win -- at a minimum -- a Right to LOC (i.e., w/o a permit, if we can legally own a handgun). The remaining anti sheriffs in "liberal", Leftist counties are scared to death that if they lose and cannot quickly issue CCWs to those who are qualified, gunnies will say "Screw that long wait! I'll LOC until I get my CCW." The anti sheriffs have, by their own restrictive GC policies, made it most likely that their own counties will have LOCing "like the Wild West," LOC meet ups, LOC marches, and LOC protests.

If that speculation is correct, I would expect some anti sheriffs to start liberalizing their GC policies and streamline their CCW processes ASAP to enable as many of us as possible to CCW so we don't feel the need or desire to LOC when we do win at SCOTUS. This might explain why Smith in Santa Clara says she's going to start issuing CCWs again, why Lopez in Yolo is liberalizing GC, why there are rumors that AV in LA Co will liberalize issuance this coming fall. (This might even explain why Whole Foods has recently been putting up "No Firearms" signs on their stores' entrances.)

The question is: how long will hard core anti sheriffs wait before liberalizing their GC standards? The longer they wait, the more gunnies there will be who will LOC in their counties after we win Carry but before that sheriff can issue them a CCW.

I've got a feeling we'll win Carry before 2020 July 01 -- 13 months (or less) to go!

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 05-25-2019 at 9:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 05-25-2019, 7:26 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,532
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I've got a feeling we'll win Carry before 2020 July 01

From your mouth to Clarence Thomas' ear.
Fingers crossed.
Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:58 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NYC appears to be moving forward with their attempts to modify the law. Public comments have closed. See link here to read them: https://rules.cityofnewyork.us/comments-view/29951

Next step will be publishing of the final text to city council and it will become effective 30 days later. The next council agenda is not finalized yet.

A couple of my favorites:
Quote:
Edward Lentz
Comment:
This rule is vital to public safety in the city. People with premises permits can't be trusted to go directly to and from locations outside the city. The "target license" was eliminated "because of the difficulty in verifying whether a target licensee is, in fact, traveling to a firing range outside the City". The current rule "allows the City to promote public safety by better regulating and minimizing the instances of unlicensed transport of firearms on City streets". The rule has survived every court challenge so far, so it's worth defending at the Supreme Court. It passes intermediate scrutiny, so it complies with Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.
Agency: NYPD

Testu Nagouchi
Comment:
these new rules should not be adopted because the current rule is vital to public safety in the city.
Agency: NYPD

Last edited by ShadowGuy; 05-27-2019 at 1:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 05-28-2019, 8:59 AM
boxcab boxcab is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 53
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Both the NFA/GCA are broad but when viewed in the light most positive for them, they are narrowly tailored to do exactly what they are intended to do. I would have no issues with those 2 laws as written being upheld under the Strict Scrutiny standard. I think they easily fit within the intended framework of that standard.
I assume the regulation(s) ending the ability to manufacture any new free market (non .gov) FA's, and/or the import of additional FA's would not be upheld within your interpretation?



.
Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 05-28-2019, 9:39 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 560
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcab View Post
I assume the regulation(s) ending the ability to manufacture any new free market (non .gov) FA's, and/or the import of additional FA's would not be upheld within your interpretation?



.
FA's (Fully Automatic arms) are not "in common use" because they are regulated by the BATFE. One can own one if one chooses to purchase the stamp and can pass the required checks. The fact that the arms are rare isn't, IMO, a valid argument against the regulation and restriction of availability.

The Gov isn't, and shouldn't be, in the business of telling the market what price to charge. It is, and should be, in the business of regulating the market when it comes to "dangerous and unusual" products.

Thus, under strict scrutiny, the regulations would stand. If you pass the checks and purchase the stamp, you can own one. Being able to purchase a fully automatic firearm cheaply isn't the government's problem. Just like being able to set up and run a distillery on the cheap isn't the governments problem; they just sell you the tax stamp and it's up to you to figure out how to buy in to the market in a location that will allow you to make whiskey to your hearts content. Note that not every political polity allows it. Complaining that it's too hard to find a place to put your vats, or it's too expensive to build, isn't a valid argument against the regulations.

Free market doesn't mean free. Or even cheap.
__________________
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
  #626  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:12 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
NYC appears to be moving forward with their attempts to modify the law. Public comments have closed. See link here to read them: https://rules.cityofnewyork.us/comments-view/29951

Next step will be publishing of the final text to city council and it will become effective 30 days later. The next council agenda is not finalized yet.

A couple of my favorites:
Serfs accepting of their serfdom.

__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:49 PM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 656
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
FA's (Fully Automatic arms) are not "in common use" because they are regulated by the BATFE. One can own one if one chooses to purchase the stamp and can pass the required checks. The fact that the arms are rare isn't, IMO, a valid argument against the regulation and restriction of availability.

The Gov isn't, and shouldn't be, in the business of telling the market what price to charge. It is, and should be, in the business of regulating the market when it comes to "dangerous and unusual" products.

Thus, under strict scrutiny, the regulations would stand. If you pass the checks and purchase the stamp, you can own one. Being able to purchase a fully automatic firearm cheaply isn't the government's problem. Just like being able to set up and run a distillery on the cheap isn't the governments problem; they just sell you the tax stamp and it's up to you to figure out how to buy in to the market in a location that will allow you to make whiskey to your hearts content. Note that not every political polity allows it. Complaining that it's too hard to find a place to put your vats, or it's too expensive to build, isn't a valid argument against the regulations.

Free market doesn't mean free. Or even cheap.
Start with my post at #23, then again at #27.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...2#post22959582

I had a question about the constitutionality of the NFA & GCA when it comes to Heller and “...in common use...”

All seems like circular reasoning.
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 05-28-2019, 1:06 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 560
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by selfshrevident View Post
Start with my post at #23, then again at #27.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...2#post22959582

I had a question about the constitutionality of the NFA & GCA when it comes to Heller and “...in common use...”

All seems like circular reasoning.
You're conflating "common use" with "dangerous and unusual". They are not the same thing.

Under your analogy, RPG's should be available to everyone since they are "military" weapons which should be as equally applicable for defense as a semi-auto handgun or AR.

As would a flame thrower. Or a cannon.

There's a reason these things are "dangerous and unusual" which has nothing to do with availability.
__________________
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
  #629  
Old 05-28-2019, 1:28 PM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 656
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
You're conflating "common use" with "dangerous and unusual". They are not the same thing.

Under your analogy, RPG's should be available to everyone since they are "military" weapons which should be as equally applicable for defense as a semi-auto handgun or AR.

As would a flame thrower. Or a cannon.

There's a reason these things are "dangerous and unusual" which has nothing to do with availability.
What makes a weapon “dangerous and unusual”?
Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 05-28-2019, 1:34 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,631
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
You're conflating "common use" with "dangerous and unusual". They are not the same thing.

Under your analogy, RPG's should be available to everyone since they are "military" weapons which should be as equally applicable for defense as a semi-auto handgun or AR.

As would a flame thrower. Or a cannon.

There's a reason these things are "dangerous and unusual" which has nothing to do with availability.
And the reason is the government banned them. During the Revolutionary War, private citizens owned fully armed warships. Are battleships less dangerous than an RPG?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #631  
Old 05-28-2019, 1:39 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
And the reason is the government banned them. During the Revolutionary War, private citizens owned fully armed warships. Are battleships less dangerous than an RPG?
First, establish that the citizens' ownership of fully armed battle stations was protected by the Second Amendment.

Just because it was legal does not mean that it was legal because of the 2d Amendment.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 05-28-2019, 1:47 PM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 770
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
FA's (Fully Automatic arms) are not "in common use" because they are regulated by the BATFE. One can own one if one chooses to purchase the stamp and can pass the required checks. The fact that the arms are rare isn't, IMO, a valid argument against the regulation and restriction of availability.

The Gov isn't, and shouldn't be, in the business of telling the market what price to charge. It is, and should be, in the business of regulating the market when it comes to "dangerous and unusual" products.

Thus, under strict scrutiny, the regulations would stand. If you pass the checks and purchase the stamp, you can own one. Being able to purchase a fully automatic firearm cheaply isn't the government's problem. Just like being able to set up and run a distillery on the cheap isn't the governments problem; they just sell you the tax stamp and it's up to you to figure out how to buy in to the market in a location that will allow you to make whiskey to your hearts content. Note that not every political polity allows it. Complaining that it's too hard to find a place to put your vats, or it's too expensive to build, isn't a valid argument against the regulations.

Free market doesn't mean free. Or even cheap.
I respectfully disagree with this assessment. There is no enumerated constitutional or natural right to manufacture, possess, or consume alcohol. There is a right to keep and bear arms for lawful self-defense, which implies a right to manufacture those arms. If guns can be kept and borne, but the manufacture of them banned, then the right to keep and bear is empty. Thus if ownership of FAs is protected under 2A (a separate question), then the manufacture of them is protected as well.
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 05-28-2019, 6:32 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,631
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
First, establish that the citizens' ownership of fully armed battle stations was protected by the Second Amendment.

Just because it was legal does not mean that it was legal because of the 2d Amendment.
Nothing is legal because of the 2nd amendment. The bill of rights doesn't grant us anything. It's just a document saying that the citizens have rights. Nothing more, nothing less.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 05-28-2019, 8:51 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
I respectfully disagree with this assessment. There is no enumerated constitutional or natural right to manufacture, possess, or consume alcohol. There is a right to keep and bear arms for lawful self-defense, which implies a right to manufacture those arms. If guns can be kept and borne, but the manufacture of them banned, then the right to keep and bear is empty. Thus if ownership of FAs is protected under 2A (a separate question), then the manufacture of them is protected as well.
If there is no right to manufacture, possess or consume alcohol, then why did we need an amendment to ban it at one time in our history?

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #635  
Old 05-28-2019, 9:07 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,993
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
If there is no right to manufacture, possess or consume alcohol, then why did we need an amendment to ban it at one time in our history?
=8-|
Think about it. Prior to the amendment, what part of the constitution allowed or granted the federal government to power to ban the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages? No Part?
Reply With Quote
  #636  
Old 05-28-2019, 9:26 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Think about it. Prior to the amendment, what part of the constitution allowed or granted the federal government to power to ban the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages? No Part?
Why are you asking me a question about my rhetorical question?

Kinda odd...

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #637  
Old 05-28-2019, 9:45 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,844
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

What's the expected date SCOTUS will respond to the proposed NY rule change affecting the status of this case?
Reply With Quote
  #638  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:01 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
What's the expected date SCOTUS will respond to the proposed NY rule change affecting the status of this case?
NYC is due to file their brief by Aug 5. I assume they are trying to change the law so they can incorporate that into their brief as a reason to moot the case.

I find it totally odd, as it would seem that by changing the law they are abandoning all the arguments that gave them a win in the lower courts.
Reply With Quote
  #639  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:52 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,532
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I think they have to go through with the process of changing the rule. They used it as a ploy to attempt to get the case mooted and if the city doesn't follow through consider how would that look to SCOTUS? Very duplicitous and deceitful is what I would think (of course its NYC so I would think that anyway).
Reply With Quote
  #640  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:55 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
NYC is due to file their brief by Aug 5. I assume they are trying to change the law so they can incorporate that into their brief as a reason to moot the case.

I find it totally odd, as it would seem that by changing the law they are abandoning all the arguments that gave them a win in the lower courts.
+1

At that point our side gets to ask: "Were you lying then or are you lying now?"
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 10:21 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.