CA and AWB

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

https://youtu.be/wUKYSGd5f58

So is this the legal battle that will most likely get to SCOTUS? Or is the MD stuff?

It seems that they usual SCOTUS idea that you get competing decisions and then compare and contrast them doesn't work here. We had laws outlawing and sanctioning gay marriage, but there aren't any real pro-2A laws that get challenged to counterweight the AWB/mag bans.

Scalia did us no favors when he called out the M16. Someone should have really had him sharpen up his language to cite something like a crew served machine gun. His M16 reference flies in the face of the NFA.

Also, I guess the left now wants to fully disown Miller.

I have . zero faith that ROberts will side with throwing out AW/M-Bans because of the logistics of it.

[BoringGuy45]

The arguments the various circuit courts have made for upholding the bans are very weak: Some courts have ruled that the 2nd only protects sporting weapons. Others ruled that the 2nd does indeed protect semiautomatic rifles, but that the government has the right to ignore constitutional rights if they feel that it's in the best interests of the country to do so.

I don't trust Roberts, but he does rule conservative more than liberal, and he's been consistently pro-gun. The one concerning thing is that he keeps turning down gun cases though.

[soulezoo]

I truly believe that Roberts goes out of his way to try to not be controversial; however, in doing so he ends up being exactly that.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I truly believe that Roberts goes out of his way to try to not be controversial; however, in doing so he ends up being exactly that.

He is one of those people who thinks that they know better and that they can tip the scales in the favor the 'right' outcome by short circuiting the standard procedures. Trump caused lots of lefties- especially judges- to think that Trump was such a threat to normal order that they could change the normal order against him and in the 'favor' the good. You get a lot of bad law out of that. My guess is that in twenty years a lot of those decisions will be whitewashed in the name of getting back to the 'normal'.

Everyone has a code of ethics that is objectively universal with set right responses, until some event happens to them- then it all becomes ad hoc decisions.

Like Sam said in Ronin, "lt's tempting. - lt's a good plan. Let's stick to the plan."

[Belmont31R]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2019-08-16/san-diego-gun-owners-sue-to-overturn-californias-ban-on-assault-weapons


Hopefully we get some favorable rulings but the way gun cases and cases that support rights goes it'll be years before a ruling is reached yet pro-left judgements can come out in hours or days :-/

[Diamondback]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2019-08-16/san-diego-gun-owners-sue-to-overturn-californias-ban-on-assault-weapons


Hopefully we get some favorable rulings but the way gun cases and cases that support rights goes it'll be years before a ruling is reached yet pro-left judgements can come out in hours or days :-/

And that's been the entire strategy of the Left Coast: "ram so many rulings through, across so many different fronts, that SCOTUS can't overturn 'em all."

[flenna]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2019-08-16/san-diego-gun-owners-sue-to-overturn-californias-ban-on-assault-weapons


Hopefully we get some favorable rulings but the way gun cases and cases that support rights goes it'll be years before a ruling is reached yet pro-left judgements can come out in hours or days :-/

Now we have the Senate ComDems outright threatening the SC that if they do not rule the way they want them to they will restructure the court.

[Belmont31R]

And that's been the entire strategy of the Left Coast: "ram so many rulings through, across so many different fronts, that SCOTUS can't overturn 'em all."



Thats why these cases get drug out. A law can be passed in days but the courts drag their feet as much as possible on stuff that benefits individual rights.

Look at the ruling legalizing regular magazines and it was stopped in a week with a different ruling, and hasn't been addressed AFAIK since.

[Diamondback]

Now we have the Senate ComDems outright threatening the SC that if they do not rule the way they want them to they will restructure the court.

You know what that sounds like to me? Time to force a vote with the new seats filled IMMEDIATELY. See them explain why one party can add new seats for immediate fill but not the other... I'd even agree to a deal to put Schumer on SCOTUS if it was part of a package deal of him and three Scalia clones to fill four new seats. Right now the math is 4-2-3, with Roberts and Kavanaugh being the two switch-hitters. Schumer gives the Left 5, we still have the Turncoat Turds in the middle, but now it's 5-2-6 on a Court of 13.

Of course the Left would do the same thing... the point isn't to actually DO it, it's to make them burn down and discredit their own idea so we can make them go on record as "they were against it before they were for it, either they were lying then or they're lying now."

[Diamondback]

Thats why these cases get drug out. A law can be passed in days but the courts drag their feet as much as possible on stuff that benefits individual rights.

Look at the ruling legalizing regular magazines and it was stopped in a week with a different ruling, and hasn't been addressed AFAIK since.

I suspect Benitez may have been teeing up a follow-up case with his actions: "there's no way to PROVE when a mag was or wasn't in California, so this ban is unenforceable."

[SteyrAUG]

The arguments the various circuit courts have made for upholding the bans are very weak: Some courts have ruled that the 2nd only protects sporting weapons. Others ruled that the 2nd does indeed protect semiautomatic rifles, but that the government has the right to ignore constitutional rights if they feel that it's in the best interests of the country to do so.



And that is why more than anything else somebody needs to go on the offensive and get rid of the sporter clause. Strike that from the 1968 GCA and the ability of anyone to "rule by decree" is gone.

The "sporter clause" needs to become the "roe v. wade" of the second amendment community and then a "never again" posture. For 50+ years the government has been able to declare what firearms are "suitable for private ownership" and what guns are not, this is the greatest level of infringement that has ever existed.

People get caught up with the NFA but that is nothing compared to the "sporter clause." Sadly few people understand this.

[Diamondback]

And that is why more than anything else somebody needs to go on the offensive and get rid of the sporter clause. Strike that from the 1968 GCA and the ability of anyone to "rule by decree" is gone.

The "sporter clause" needs to become the "roe v. wade" of the second amendment community and then a "never again" posture. For 50+ years the government has been able to declare what firearms are "suitable for private ownership" and what guns are not, this is the greatest level of infringement that has ever existed.

People get caught up with the NFA but that is nothing compared to the "sporter clause." Sadly few people understand this.

Seems to me that even under Miller "sporting purposes" is prime for strike-down, the problem is getting a test case. (Then again, you could say the same about Hughes given how virtually every man and dog on the modern battlefield has a select-fire weapon...)

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The Scalia comments on M16s is difficult, but somewhere I read that the comment is in the ‘dicta’ and not in the core ruling.

It seems like pointing out that:
1. The military uses auto loader handguns, pump and semi shotguns too. If the rationale is that a gun is useful in military service and therefore can be banned, there are very few guns that wouldn’t be able to be banned.
2. The M4/16 as it is today isn’t leading civilian technology, it is derived from civilian shooters. Free-floated rails, two-stage triggers, red dot sights and even the ammo mk262 came from civilian shooting competitions. They are not military weapons in the hands of civilians, they are 3-gamer guns put onto the battlefield. Never mind that the 223/556 came from the civilian varmint round. There is actually a long history of civilian arms innovations being applied to military arms, starting with the rifling of the barrel.

Isn’t going to sway anyone. All they hear is m16s are bad, I can’t tell the difference, bam them all.

[JoshNC]

And that is why more than anything else somebody needs to go on the offensive and get rid of the sporter clause. Strike that from the 1968 GCA and the ability of anyone to "rule by decree" is gone.

The "sporter clause" needs to become the "roe v. wade" of the second amendment community and then a "never again" posture. For 50+ years the government has been able to declare what firearms are "suitable for private ownership" and what guns are not, this is the greatest level of infringement that has ever existed.

People get caught up with the NFA but that is nothing compared to the "sporter clause." Sadly few people understand this.


Agreed. 925(d)(3) must go.

[Diamondback]

The Scalia comments on M16s is difficult, but somewhere I read that the comment is in the ‘dicta’ and not in the core ruling.

It seems like pointing out that:
1. The military uses auto loader handguns, pump and semi shotguns too. If the rationale is that a gun is useful in military service and therefore can be banned, there are very few guns that wouldn’t be able to be banned.
2. The M4/16 as it is today isn’t leading civilian technology, it is derived from civilian shooters. Free-floated rails, two-stage triggers, red dot sights and even the ammo mk262 came from civilian shooting competitions. They are not military weapons in the hands of civilians, they are 3-gamer guns put onto the battlefield. Never mind that the 223/556 came from the civilian varmint round. There is actually a long history of civilian arms innovations being applied to military arms, starting with the rifling of the barrel.

Isn’t going to sway anyone. All they hear is m16s are bad, I can’t tell the difference, bam them all.
And here again, Miller was rooted on "anything common military use is protected, all this stuff in NFA isn't common-use."

[SteyrAUG]

Seems to me that even under Miller "sporting purposes" is prime for strike-down, the problem is getting a test case. (Then again, you could say the same about Hughes given how virtually every man and dog on the modern battlefield has a select-fire weapon...)

The problem is it took the Cato Institute to bring us Heller. For whatever reason the NRA is unable / unwilling to go on the offensive with the 1968 GCA and the sporter clause. This is compounded by the fact that probably 90% of the NRA membership thinks FOPA was "just a machine gun ban."

Nobody is educated, nobody is informed and as a result nobody is motivated in the proper direction. Go on ordinary forums like Glocktalk and you will probably find more people who know the details of pluto and it's status as a dwarf planet than you will people who even know what was in the 1968 GCA before and after FOPA.

There was organization, coordination and consensus when it came to moving conceal carry laws forward and getting some level of reciprocity among "normal people" states. So we've seen that it can be done. But when it comes to black rifles and things like taking on the 1968 GCA we seem to lack the courage of even the "gay pride" crowd and we have too many gun owners who want to stay in the closet with their modern carbines.

Granted the OC rifles guys frequently come off as fringe and LARPers but we need to stand up the way gay rights activists demanded that even the assless chaps contingent of the movement must be respected. So long as the "professional image" guys aren't willing to sit in the front of the bus, nobody will take notice and everyone will assume there is something wrong with those "other guys."

The average guy doesn't need to become an "activist" but we probably need to stop throwing the guys who do under the bus. So long as their activism is legal or nothing more than civil disobedience we need to realize they are the vanguard until someone better steps up.

We are hampered by the fact that we can't engage in illegal / violent activism to get our way like some extremists in the 60s were able to do, so we need to at least be doing everything we can. In a perfect world CA would be harshly criticized for trampling the rights of their citizens to the same level as any state would that decided to ban abortions.

Sadly the firearms community can be terribly divisive and we split not only along lines of what is considered an "acceptable firearm" but also along all political, social and religious lines.

[SteyrAUG]

Agreed. 925(d)(3) must go.


Sadly that doesn't lend itself to a catchy chant or soundbite.

[Diamondback]

Sadly that doesn't lend itself to a catchy chant or soundbite.

Hey hey, ho ho
925d3 has got to go!

:)

--modeled after the Berserkeley rioting over their Western Civ course requirement

[SteyrAUG]

Hey hey, ho ho
925d3 has got to go!

:)

--modeled after the Berserkeley rioting over their Western Civ course requirement

Even I refuse to participate in any "Hey hey, ho ho" activist chant. I so detest that phrase I don't think I could adequately explain it. Now if we could figure out a way to incorporate "sporter clause" into the refrain from "the roof is on fire" we might just have something.

[Diamondback]

Steyr, maybe there's something wrong with me that I just love that extra "twist of the knife" of using the very weapons the Left taught me against them, openly reveling in being a "traitor to their cause." :)

[lowprone]

Taking our firearms IS The New Testament to them.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Taking our firearms IS The New Testament to them.

Time to go Old Testament?? ;)

[soulezoo]

Time to go Old Testament?? ;)

Yeah, like Ezekiel.

[Buckaroo]

I'd rather go with the Elijah model / method.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk