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
  #121  
Old 05-31-2019, 12:20 PM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,399
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Hopefully we get some news today. I could not find out where the hearing was located other than it is in courtroom 10A at 10:30am as listed on the Giffords court doc.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 05-31-2019, 2:11 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 360
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

"Applying intermediate scrutiny this court finds this does implicate the Second Amendment. AW are "the alike"."

Just my guess.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 06-01-2019, 8:58 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidsnake87 View Post
Hopefully we get some news today. I could not find out where the hearing was located other than it is in courtroom 10A at 10:30am as listed on the Giffords court doc.
So.... no news?
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 06-01-2019, 9:32 AM
BBot12 BBot12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 365
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Either we all misunderstood what was going on or the court has additional things they need to sort out. Idk at this point
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 06-01-2019, 9:35 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBot12 View Post
Either we all misunderstood what was going on or the court has additional things they need to sort out. Idk at this point
Maybe she sees they way the wind is blowing in scotus with nysrpa and trying to find a way not to piss into it.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:22 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Sure looks like 2A litigation is grinding to a halt
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:39 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was kinda hoping for a AW Freedom week....
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:48 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
I was kinda hoping for a AW Freedom week....
I don't see how that would work. Just about any rifle could be made featureless. So you could buy it now. The only thing you can't buy are pistols that are also AWs but this wouldn't over turn the roster.

So we are talking about roster exempt assult weapon pistols. Not likely to see a freedom week.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:21 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

According to this, the last update (from 5/31) is:

Quote:
MINUTES OF Hearing re Defendant Xavier Becerra's Motion for Summary Judgment73 , and Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Partial Summary Judgment77 before Judge Josephine L. Staton: Hearing held. Matters taken under submission by the Court. Defendant's request to vacate all pending 0dates is GRANTED. Court Reporter: Deborah Parker. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION). (jp)
I'm not entirely sure what that means. There was previously another hearing scheduled for 7/5.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:31 AM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,399
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Here I was hoping for info....... and nothing yet. I thought for sure this would have been updated by now.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 06-01-2019, 8:03 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Maybe she sees they way the wind is blowing in scotus with nysrpa and trying to find a way not to piss into it.
That would be easy enough wouldn't it? Just punt while citing 9CA precedent.
That way she can get this one out of her courtroom without actually ruling on it. Status Quo, here we come.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 06-02-2019, 1:10 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBot12 View Post
So today is a final hearing that will lead to summary judgement? Am I understanding that correctly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
According to this, the last update (from 5/31) is:



I'm not entirely sure what that means. There was previously another hearing scheduled for 7/5.
Judge is considering arguments presented at the hearing and as a result, granted Xavier's request to vacate the schedule that was in place going into the hearing. Depending on how the judge rules, a new schedule will be determined after the ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 06-02-2019, 1:32 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,150
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

IANAL but my understanding is, she should rule according to 9th circuit precedents, in other words, she should uphold the ban. If district judges could make their own interpretations of issues that are already decided at higher levels, it would be total chaos. No one would know what a law means. Lawyers, correct me if I'm wrong in this.

Sure would be cool if we could get things done by finding one individual district judge to do it. I know that on immigration, they'll find some hate-filled judge in Hawaii, who wishes the US had no sovereignty, and get him to suspend some aspect of US immigration law and it applies nation-wide, but somehow that only works for liberals. Would be awesome if we could find a district judge in Idaho who would suspend the Hughes Amendment for a couple of months.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024

Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 06-03-2019, 10:10 AM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 718
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Status Update

A hearing on both parties' summary judgment motions was held on Friday.

The Court took the matter under submission without ruling.

So the Court will next either: (1) grant one of the summary judgment motions (in which case the losing party will almost certainly appeal to the Ninth Circuit); or (2) deny both motions (in which case we continue to trial before this Court).

The Court could also request additional briefing or hearings before deciding. But, even if it does that, ultimately the two options above are all that remain.

Before anyone asks, no, I do not have any idea how long the Court will take to issue a ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 06-03-2019, 12:06 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Thanks for that update. Is the hearing something that might be viewable/listenable online somewhere? If not not, do you think it went "well" in your opinion (as in, did the judge seem receptive, or hostile?) I understand if you don't want to opine on that right now, but thought I'd ask anyways. Thanks!
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 06-03-2019, 1:16 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 718
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Not to my knowledge.

I will refrain from opining on how things went.

It should be understood, however, that this case is far from over, no matter what the lower court rules. Either side will appeal.

And, even if we were to prevail, I highly doubt there would be an "AW Freedom Week" because the State expressly asked the Court to stay any ruling in the Plaintiffs' favor. The Court, having see what happened in Duncan, would likely do just that.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 06-03-2019, 1:59 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 360
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Not to my knowledge.

I will refrain from opining on how things went.

It should be understood, however, that this case is far from over, no matter what the lower court rules. Either side will appeal.

And, even if we were to prevail, I highly doubt there would be an "AW Freedom Week" because the State expressly asked the Court to stay any ruling in the Plaintiffs' favor. The Court, having see what happened in Duncan, would likely do just that.
I hope it went better than the MA AWB case.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 06-04-2019, 5:48 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Not to my knowledge.

I will refrain from opining on how things went.

It should be understood, however, that this case is far from over, no matter what the lower court rules. Either side will appeal.

And, even if we were to prevail, I highly doubt there would be an "AW Freedom Week" because the State expressly asked the Court to stay any ruling in the Plaintiffs' favor. The Court, having see what happened in Duncan, would likely do just that.
We should do that too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 07-22-2019, 10:46 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

order came out
https://www.scribd.com/document/4194...Rupp-MSJ-Order
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato

Last edited by wolfwood; 07-23-2019 at 2:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 07-22-2019, 11:22 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That is some sweet ninth circus gymnastics there. "Oh well the features that make a gun an assault weapon might all be BS but together they aren't" what kinda crap is that. No feature of assault weapons is more dangerous yet together somehow they increase danger. Yet no one has shown how any of these features work together, so to change the law we have to make up the other side's argument then defeat it.


I sure hope NYC rifle pistol gives us a new test.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 07-23-2019, 7:07 AM
kenl's Avatar
kenl kenl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: back home
Posts: 1,591
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Wow. Among other things, the 9th says there is no substantial difference between a m16 and an ar15. Last time I checked, the m16 is a select fire machine gun, while its illegal to make an ar15 into one. Maybe I'm just dense, but to me that's a huge difference
__________________


California, the once-great first world state that is now a corrupt third world socialist cesspool.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 07-23-2019, 7:20 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,625
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenl View Post
Wow. Among other things, the 9th says there is no substantial difference between a m16 and an ar15. Last time I checked, the m16 is a select fire machine gun, while its illegal to make an ar15 into one. Maybe I'm just dense, but to me that's a huge difference
They referenced the relative little difference in the amount of time it takes to empty a 30 round mag and seemed to have evidence that even in semi-auto mode, the M16 and AR15 have a rate of fire of 4-500 rounds per minute. I wonder where they got that info?
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 07-23-2019, 7:50 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Second, and more simply, the Court is bound by the Ninth Circuit’s two-step inquiry. Accordingly, the Court applies the Ninth Circuit’s two-step inquiry to determine the constitutionality of the AWCA under the Second Amendment
THE most important part of the entire order. The rest is just back and fill.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

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!

My Utubery
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 07-23-2019, 8:07 AM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,965
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Can someone who is knowledgeable about these things link to something that explains the Two-Step Inquiry discussed above?
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 07-23-2019, 8:29 AM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,457
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Even the military stated, "We would never send a soldier into battle with an AR-15. The AR-15 is NOT a Military weapon".
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 07-23-2019, 10:08 AM
SWalt's Avatar
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,332
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well, that isn't good.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 07-23-2019, 10:22 AM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 427
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten View Post
Can someone who is knowledgeable about these things link to something that explains the Two-Step Inquiry discussed above?
Read the order that wolfwood posted. The district court discusses the 2 step test the 9th circuit has been employing.
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 07-23-2019, 10:49 AM
Aeneas's Avatar
Aeneas Aeneas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Office of Morale Conditioning
Posts: 1,127
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DolphinFan View Post
Even the military stated, "We would never send a soldier into battle with an AR-15. The AR-15 is NOT a Military weapon".
Herein lies the problem. The Second Amendment is supposed to protect military weapons, not just less dangerous versions, or firearms in common use. These compromises dilute the power of the individual as we are always begging the courts to allow us permission to possess some stripped down version of that which is lawful per the Second Amendment. So we go on defense and argue with the anti-gunners as to what constitutes an "assault weapon", as surely AR-15's are not, while we actually have the right to keep and bear true assault weapons anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:37 AM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 600
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
They referenced the relative little difference in the amount of time it takes to empty a 30 round mag and seemed to have evidence that even in semi-auto mode, the M16 and AR15 have a rate of fire of 4-500 rounds per minute. I wonder where they got that info?
Thats 6.6 to 8.3 trigger pulls per second. I dont even think thats possible even without magazine swaps. Jerry Miculek only shoots 5 a second.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 07-23-2019, 7:32 PM
Redlands Shooter's Avatar
Redlands Shooter Redlands Shooter is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 213
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

It’s another success for the anti-2A’s plan to kill us by a thousand cuts; incrementalism prevails again.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 07-24-2019, 9:24 AM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 86
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well, that was to be expected... We'll just have to see what NYSRPA vs NYC's opinion is and see how that can be applied here, if at all.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 07-24-2019, 9:49 AM
mooner760HD's Avatar
mooner760HD mooner760HD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 618
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So the next step is appeal above the 9th?
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 07-24-2019, 10:07 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 360
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Without the two-step approach overruled and/or having the courts apply proper scrutiny level (or really the proper test), this case is going no where fun for us.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:23 PM
Glock21sfsd Glock21sfsd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Susanville
Posts: 474
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

‘they are also not “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense.’”

What a liar! I hate these politicians in Commiefornia
__________________
Jeffery Overman
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 07-26-2019, 3:36 PM
Weezard Weezard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This was pretty disgusting to read. A lot of questionable arguments, frequent jumping between "assault weapon" and "semiautomatic weapon" (could be a handgun in that case), many citations from groups like the Brady Campaign and Everytown along with their sketchy misinformation tactics. They really don't significantly address the argument of *why* the list of features is so effective they need to be banned other than claiming pistol grips let you control the gun better and reload faster (without explanation).

They make the argument that semi-automatic rifles are basically the same as fully automatic rifles and are therefore not covered by Heller. They argue that rifles aren't for home defense because only 30% of people buying them are buying them for home defense, vs 59.5% for handguns. 30% sounds significant to me.

And here is a nice gem:

Quote:
The Attorney General’s expert notes that “[a]djustable stocks also contribute to the control of the rifle in that they allow the shooter to optimize the rifle to their arm length.”
So their "expert" literally argued that adjustable stocks have to be banned because they make the gun more ergonomic. And the judge includes this non-critically.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 07-26-2019, 3:48 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,790
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Okay so now the argument is that semi-automatics aren't common....this should be infinitely easier to win now...
__________________
For you to believe globalization can continue, you have to believe it doesn't require increased consumption and that the Americans will continue to bleed and die so that the Chinese can access energy. - Peter Zeihan
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 07-26-2019, 3:55 PM
Weezard Weezard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This judge argued that they are not commonly used for the "core" purpose of the second amendment, which she says is home defense according to Heller. Therefore anything not used for home defense can be banned.

Since she argues rifles aren't good for home defense because they are less maneuverable doesn't that make the argument that short barreled rifles should be legal?

Though she also makes the argument that as long as you have access to "a" gun it doesn't matter if they ban guns that are more effective.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 07-26-2019, 4:10 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weezard View Post
So their "expert" literally argued that adjustable stocks have to be banned because they make the gun more ergonomic. And the judge includes this non-critically.
Not exactly. They argued it made guns more "controllable". I.e, safer.
By that argument, they don't want safe guns.

So when do we see the "not unsafe" handgun roster discarded?
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 07-26-2019, 4:29 PM
1911su16b870's Avatar
1911su16b870 1911su16b870 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,656
iTrader: 167 / 100%
Default

https://news.guns.com/wp-content/upl...ng-7222019.pdf


Here is the ruling and my "not-a-lawyer" analysis:

Error in logic IMO page 9:

Quote:
“The Supreme Court has emphasized that nothing in its recent opinions is intended to cast doubt on the constitutionality of longstanding prohibitions traditionally understood to be outside the scope of the Second Amendment.” Fyock, 779 F.3d at 996 (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–27). “Importantly, the Second Amendment does not ‘protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.’” Id. at 996–97. “Thus, longstanding prohibitions on the possession of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ have uniformly been recognized as falling outside the scope of the Second Amendment.” Id. at 997 (citing United States v. Henry, 688 F.3d 637, 639–40 (9th Cir. 2012) (machineguns are “dangerous and unusual” weapons and outside scope of the Second Amendment)).
As the court lumps semi-auto "assault weapons" (features) into the same category as machine guns etc., and deals with it this in the footnote on page 10.

Quote:
The Court notes, however, that analyzing the constitutionality of the AWCA based “on how common a weapon is at the time of the litigation would be circular.” Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that “[m]achine guns aren’t commonly owned for lawful purposes today because they are illegal” and “semi-automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines are owned more commonly because, until recently (in some jurisdictions), they have been legal”).
Totally missing the point that the gov has infringed on those arms...making them not in common use...etc.

Error in fact on page 19:

Quote:
The increased casualty rate is likely due, at least in part, to the fact that “[g]unshot wounds from assault rifles, such as AR-15s and AK-47s, tend to be higher in complexity with higher complication rates than such injuries from non-assault weapons, increasing the likelihood of morbidity in patients that present injuries from assault rifles.”
...it is not the weapon but the nature of the cartridge, whereas other non CA AW weapons use the same cartridge...

page 22

Quote:
However, the Court is “weighing a legislative judgment, not evidence in a criminal trial.” See Pena v. Lindley, 898 F.3d 969, 979 (9th Cir. 2018). Even assuming there is not direct causal evidence between mass shootings and higher casualty rates and rifles within the scope of the AWCA, California is entitled to make “reasonable inferences” from the available data that shows a correlation.
Judge Stanton finds the AW ban in CA meets intermediate scrutiny for protection of public. page 23

Quote:
To be sure, Plaintiffs may have legitimate interests in possessing semiautomatic rifles within the AWCA’s scope. However, California has permissibly weighed those interests against the weapons’ propensity for being used for mass violence and concluded that the weapons’ lawful value is drastically outweighed by the danger they pose to California citizens. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the AWCA withstands intermediate scrutiny.
__________________
"Bruen, the Bruen opinion, I believe, discarded the intermediate scrutiny test that I also thought was not very useful; and has, instead, replaced it with a text history and tradition test." Judge Benitez 12-12-2022

NRA Endowment Life Member, CRPA Life Member
GLOCK (Gen 1-5, G42/43), Colt AR15/M16/M4, Sig P320, Sig P365, Beretta 90 series, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer
Remington Nylon, 1911, HK, Ruger, Hudson H9 Armorer, just for fun!
I instruct it if you shoot it.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 07-26-2019, 9:58 PM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Freedom, NC
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 80 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weezard View Post
And here is a nice gem:

So their "expert" literally argued that adjustable stocks have to be banned because they make the gun more ergonomic. And the judge includes this non-critically.
Yea.. because the goal with any firearm should be making it harder to control..

Maybe cars would be safer with seats that didn't adjust?

The whole deal is like some sort of Greek Tragedy..
__________________
“People believed that the opposite of war is peace. The truth is that the opposite of war is more often slavery” - Battlestar Galactica

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony270 View Post
It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA
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 8:13 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy