Calguns goes after DOJ "policy" instead of fighting to overturn the laws themselves
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Calguns goes after DOJ "policy" instead of fighting to overturn the laws themselves

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

    Calguns goes after DOJ "policy" instead of fighting to overturn the laws themselves

    Somebody tell me if it's just me and if I'm being an impatient jerk or something. But it seems to me that Calguns' latest move to challenge the CA DOJ on points of policy (because the CA DOJ is basically making up rules as it goes along) potentially diverts time and money (and lawyers are expensive, as groups like FPC and Calguns keep telling us) away from what they should be doing: Challenging the actual Gunmageddon laws.

    Here's their latest lawsuit, just announced.


    https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/br...gun_doj_policy

    You can see in their announcement that they say,

    "We filed this lawsuit to fight DOJ's tyrannical 'rulemaking-by-executive-fiat' and protect law-abiding gun owners from criminal liability for just following the text of the Penal Code.

    And this case is even more important after 7 new gun control bills and Proposition 63 were passed last year."


    GREAT! So instead of filing this lawsuit, why didn't Calguns team up with (the growing number of pro-gun organizations opposed to CA's Gunmaggedon / Gunpocalypse laws), and launch a lawsuit to overturn THE GUNMAGGEDON / GUNPOCALYPSE LAWS? It's not like we DON'T HAVE organizations dedicated to defending our rights. In California alone the organizations who have decided to affiliate with Coalition of Civil Liberties (a group dedicated to opposition of Prop 63, the ammo ban law) are:

    CalGuns Shooting Sports Association
    California Reserve Peace Officers Association
    California Rifle & Pistol Association
    Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
    Congress of Racial Equality
    FFLGuard
    Gun Owners of California
    Jews Can Shoot
    Law Enforcement Alliance of America
    Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys
    National Shooting Sports Foundation
    NRA Members' Council
    Pink Pistols (Armed Gays)
    San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association
    Women Against Gun Control

    and many more

    Now I know, someone will say, "well someone has to have been harmed... there has to be a plaintiff... a case has to be made... yadda yadda" and yet we are creeping up on the dates when these laws will become effective. In fact various of the unconstitutional Gunpocalypse laws already are effective right now in 2017! So in my mind, EVERYONE in CA has been harmed, EVERYONE is a potential plaintiff who is a gun owner in CA! And since CA thinks it's illegal to ship ammo straight to a customer's door and since presumably people visit CA as well, potentially there are plaintiffs outside of CA too. You could say that there might be potential to have plaintiffs across the United States in a case against CA's gun laws.

    To me the most important thing right now is fighting actual laws that infringe upon our rights (that is to say the Gunmaggedon / Gunpocalypse laws) and court decisions that do so also (here I refer to the recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision basically saying that the Second Amendment doesn't exist and the government can take away your guns if it wants to).

    Numerous times, various organizations have asked us for money saying they need it because they are getting ready to sue to overturn Gunmaggedon / Gunpocalypse laws.

    Calguns specifically mentioned Gunpocalypse laws in their fundraising appeal(s) last year. So did FPC / FPF and other groups. For me, I get tired of the waiting. I want to see results. Specifically, lawsuits against the Gunpocalypse laws. To overturn the laws and render them void.

    These laws are:

    AB 857 – The Gutted and Amended Restriction On Curios, Relics and Home-Built Firearms: Requires retroactive serialization and registration of firearms from the past 50 years, including home-builts, as well as curio and relics. (Has been signed into law by the Governor.) Would create a precedent for registration that does not yet exist, and needs to be challenged in the courts.

    AB 1135 – The Gutted and Amended “Assault Weapons” Ban: Part of a bill package that would ban 70 percent of all firearms in CA. (Has been signed into law by the Governor.)

    AB 1511 – The Gutted and Amended Bill that Criminalizes Loaning Firearms (Has been signed into law by the Governor.)

    AB 1695 – The Bill Which Assumes Firearms Owners Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent (Has been signed into law by the Governor.)

    SB 880 – Expands “Assault Weapons” Ban to Include “Bullet Button” Semi-Auto Rifles, Pistols: Part of bill package that would ban 70 percent of all firearms in CA (Has been signed into law by the Governor.)

    SB 1446 – Ban on ALL Magazines that were Designed to Hold More than 10 Rounds, even those already legal under CA law (Has been signed into law by the Governor) - Would create a precedent for ban on owning property.

    SB 1235 (de Leon) --Restrictions on ammunition purchases, creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners. (Has been signed into law by the Governor.) Would create a precedent for registration of ammunition and unconstitutional restriction on commerce (violation of Commerce Clause).

    All these need to be challenged directly in court.

    Under CURRENT CA LAW:

    As of January 1, 2017, you can no longer buy/make/import the standard bullet-buttoned AR-15 as we know it since it is now an assault rifle. The definition of a “fixed magazine” was changed from having to use a tool to something that requires disassembly of the firearm action.
    For those of you who got one before…you have until January 1, 2018 to either register it as an assault weapon or make it featureless. (As those of you know who read my stuff on this site, I think registration is unconstitutional, so I don't think you should register, I'm just "saying what the law says" here to make a point that it needs to be challenged.) Or (per the law) you can also surrender it, sell it outside of CA, etc…basically stuff you probably don’t want to do.
    If you register, there’s all sorts of fun things that come along with it…travel restrictions, inability to sell in CA, inability to lend, inability to transfer to family even if you die, etc. Essentially it will die with you.
    AR pistols (per these new laws) must follow the new laws PLUS not have a threaded barrel nor handguards. So you’ll have to pin/weld an approved muzzle device and somehow not have handguards. Basically…you’ll have to register (again, unconstitutional as per my thoughts on the matter) or use the new type of bullet button. Essentially bans a type of weapon.

    80% builds are still legal. But CA law essentially says any new builds cannot be made into an AW. This by itself is easy enough to deal with, but furthermore, AB 857 requires that by Jan 1, 2019 all completed firearms have a serial number. If you engrave prior to July 1, 2018, you do not need to notify any government entity. But if you do it after, you’ll have to apply to the state (pay fees, get a serial number, etc). There are all kinds of legal problems with this (including prior restraint and unconstitutional action by government in coercing or compelling another to engage in expressive speech or action) and this law needs to be overturned. Elsewhere, I've explained how people can use creative noncompliance to avoid complying with AB 857 completely until it is overturned, due to that its language doesn't apply to those who are strictly "making" their own receivers for their own purposes.

    Particularly in consideration of the fact that we now are about to have a nine-member U.S. Supreme Court with Gorsuch seated (anticipated to be seated as justice before Easter recess) there is NO EXCUSE for not proceeding to sue to overturn these laws.

    And if Calguns, CPRA, NRA, FPC / FPF, and a variety of other groups will NOT be suing the State to overturn not just Prop 63 (which was passed as a result of voters' actions) but as well, the various anti-2A bills signed into law in July 2016 shown above (Not sure why they haven't done so, since in November 2016 they made public statements saying they would sue to overturn the Gunpocalypse laws) then we should stop donating to them and get the lawsuits done ourselves.

    Ask your lawyer(s) these questions (particularly if you are a gun owner in CA):

    1) What are the requirements and timeline for challenging these laws in federal court (possibly under 42 USC § 1983) and and how long do I (or anyone else for that matter) have to do so now that the bills have been signed into law?

    2) What is the process for developing a case such that various people across the state could become involved as plaintiffs in a bill of peace, a.k.a. class action lawsuit?
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  2.   
  3. #2
    This group "Calguns" always struck me as a few bricks shy of a complete nuthouse.

    Even so, Scalia has explained in his write up of Heller that the States are given the power to regulate firearms possession outside of the home, in his august opinion. Whether Roberts told him to write that and then Kennedy agreed, we will never know, until Roberts or Kennedy writes a tell-all book someday.

    So Californians are basically dependent on their own sheriffs' and police chiefs' concurrence whether or not to carry in public.

    The new Sheriff in Sacto County is issuing a lot more concealed carry permits -- more than any other county. So the best bet for Californians who want to live safe is to move to Sacto County.

    The rest of California is still a sh!t hole.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    This group "Calguns" always struck me as a few bricks shy of a complete nuthouse.

    Even so, Scalia has explained in his write up of Heller that the States are given the power to regulate firearms possession outside of the home, in his august opinion. Whether Roberts told him to write that and then Kennedy agreed, we will never know, until Roberts or Kennedy writes a tell-all book someday.

    So Californians are basically dependent on their own sheriffs' and police chiefs' concurrence whether or not to carry in public.

    The new Sheriff in Sacto County is issuing a lot more concealed carry permits -- more than any other county. So the best bet for Californians who want to live safe is to move to Sacto County.

    The rest of California is still a sh!t hole.
    While I agree with your commentary in a general sense, it is worthwhile to point out the following:

    The new law, AB 857, with respect to builds you would do yourself, including 80 percenters, attempts to create a system of registration (that would involve requirement for serialization as well as registration that you would be required to do through the state), but the US Supreme Court has not deemed such registration to be constitutional. In point of fact there is ample evidence of court records and decisions which strongly suggests that this law would be unconstitutional on the basis of prior restraint and also on the grounds that it involves state activity that attempts to compel or coerce an individual or individuals into making specific types of expressive activity. Such state activity is also prohibited by U.S. Supreme Court precedent -- see, for example, West Virginia Bd. of Educ. vs. Barnette (1943) and Wooley vs. Maynard (1977).

    CA's now-signed-into-law AB 857 creates a "registry" in the words of the law, composed of "name, address, identification of, place of birth (state or country), complete telephone number, occupation, sex, description, and all legal names and aliases ever used by the owner!"

    This is something the State of California (where I live) is already developing (for not just AB 857 but for the other Gunpocalypse bills as
    well) and so, many pro-2A organizations and businesses should work together and move quickly to get an injunction to halt the Gunpocalypse bills (AB 857 and others passed in July 2016) before they are allowed to become operational - not after.

    Registration is among several gun control measures that are being challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds in the wake of two U.S. Supreme Court rulings that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms (District of Columbia v. Heller (128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010)). Though Heller v. District of Columbia, 698 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.C. 2010) upheld a form of registration, this was not at the U.S. Supreme Court level, and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) at U.S. Supreme Court never tackled the issue of whether registration itself is unconstitutional.

    Bear in mind that under the new U.S. Supreme Court with Gorsuch we do have a chance to overturn such laws as AB 857 which are arguably unconstitutional on numerous grounds even before taking into account the issue of the Second Amendment itself!

    Licensing schemes, which were assumed to be legal in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), are different than today's registration schemes in California (based on Gunpocalypse bills) which would cause the state to retain owner data AND which have the object of prohibition(!!).

    In the case of D. Anthony Heller, Et. Al., Appellants v. District of Columbia, Et. Al., Appellees, on Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case number No. 1:08-cv01289, the gun registration requirement proposed by the jurisdiction was actually DEFEATED in a September 18, 2015 decision. (The jurisdiction at the lower court level managed to get some of its registration requirements sustained but various others were actually struck down.) Again, however, this was not tested at the U.S. Supreme Court and as yet unexamined was the extreme level of unconstitutional activity (including prior restraint, unconstitutional use of law to attempt to compel serialization and registration, etc.) that has been employed in CA (AB 857). Arguably, AB 857 and laws like it in CA are already void on the basis that they are not constitutional; thus the case could readily be made to the (new) U.S. Supreme Court that they should be stricken down.

    Some claims have been made (basically by liberal gun controller types) that (regarding Justice v. Cicero, 577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009) if Heller applied to the states and local governments, the town's mandatory registration requirement would still be constitutional because, unlike law struck down in Heller, the Cicero ordinance supposedly regulates, but does not prohibit, gun possession.

    However, it is plain that the registration requirements in California are developed for the purpose of ultimate PROHIBITION, as has been seen by the development of SB 880 and AB 1135, which have the ultimate intent of actual prohibition following registration, prohibition of transfer, and prohibition of purchase (with the ultimate effect of large numbers and types of weapons in common use being prohibited) and as has been seen by the development of AB 857, which attempts to prohibit people's ability to make their own firearms.

    Thus, there can be no logical claim that a registration requirement in the state of California (including any serialization or registration requirement under AB 857) is constitutional using the Justice v. Cicero argument or any argument at all. AB 857 fails due to that it is plainly unconstitutional. The law is thus invalid, not merely because of its unconstitutionality, but because there is no legal basis for registration to be applied. The law (AB 857) is also "void for vagueness," since a person who is engaging in the "making" of their own receiver in their own home who never has any intent to sell or transfer the receiver they make, technically cannot be considered to fall within AB 857 if we consider the meaning of the word "make" as it is understood in the NFA (current statute). Yet if the state will consider it to apply to anyone who is an 80 percent builder it shows that the state is simply engaged in making up laws that have no meaning (not only when compared to the Constitution, which is superior, but even in light of comparison to the legal definitions which the state has failed to provide, preferring to engage in regular ritual abuses of discretion). Thus this whole scenario must be considered to be completely unconstitutional and must be overturned by the courts.

    Finally, even if an argument for registration of rifles is later upheld at the US Supreme Court (which has not yet happened - as anyone here knows, or should know, you are not required to register a rifle that you make or that you have bought), there can be no claim that people who finish their own lower receiver from an eighty percent lower receiver are going to build a "rifle" that would be subject to registration as defined by the courts. That is because various build configurations exist that for firearms that are classified as neither Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, or AOW under either State and/or Federal law. An eighty-percenter can be used as part of the process to be made into ANY configuration - and any claim that it must necessarily become a rifle (or pistol) is FALSE.

    Ultimately, however, with the California Legislature's ultimate intent of actual prohibition following registration, prohibition of transfer, and prohibition of purchase (with the ultimate effect of large numbers and types of weapons in common use being prohibited), any registration "requirement" in the State of California becomes unconstitutional.

    Under present law (before AB 857 becomes effective - as it has not yet reached the effective date) the user can make their own mark on their receiver that they finish from an eighty percenter and need not engage in any form of registration (nor should they after the effective date of the law, anyway). They basically can engage in voluntary serialization for the purposes of marking when they made it or creating a mark that they can use to document what the weapon looks like and what date it was made in the event their weapon is stolen and they need to show law enforcement later. But they need not show or register with law enforcement when putting their own mark on the eighty percenter.

    Furthermore,
    AB 857, which has been signed into law, clearly violates the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; I also believe it to be a violation of the 1st Amendment (because it bars a user from engaging in certain types of free expression and forces a user to accept only that expression or marks upon a weapon which the State would permit or
    issue), see for example, Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. (Attorney General Kamala) Harris, a (ongoing, but successful thus far) case in which a gun shop owner argued that he should be able to post signs with handguns on them visible from a store window despite California's ban on such speech (though not complete, the case is in progress).

    California is not legally allowed to impose certain types of expression (such as a serialization and registration mark) and deny others or demand that the user apply to the
    DoJ for a mark that only the State can provide (as it tries to do with AB 857). This is unconstitutional and violates the 1st Amendment. (See also The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test), developed as a result of the Brandenburg v. Ohio (US Supreme Court) decision that struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, explicitly overruled Whitney v. California and cast doubt on Schenck v. United States, Abrams v. United States, Gitlow v. New York (1925), and
    Dennis v. United States.

    We have a responsibility to fight unconstitutional laws and the Gunpocalypse laws are clearly such laws as I have described above in discussing AB 857 and other Gunpocalypse laws.
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    While I agree with your commentary in a general sense, it is worthwhile to point out the following:

    The new law, AB 857, with respect to builds you would do yourself, including 80 percenters, attempts to create a system of registration (that would involve requirement for serialization as well as registration that you would be required to do through the state), but the US Supreme Court has not deemed such registration to be constitutional. In point of fact there is ample evidence of court records and decisions which strongly suggests that this law would be unconstitutional on the basis of prior restraint and also on the grounds that it involves state activity that attempts to compel or coerce an individual or individuals into making specific types of expressive activity. Such state activity is also prohibited by U.S. Supreme Court precedent -- see, for example, West Virginia Bd. of Educ. vs. Barnette (1943) and Wooley vs. Maynard (1977).

    CA's now-signed-into-law AB 857 creates a "registry" in the words of the law, composed of "name, address, identification of, place of birth (state or country), complete telephone number, occupation, sex, description, and all legal names and aliases ever used by the owner!"

    This is something the State of California (where I live) is already developing (for not just AB 857 but for the other Gunpocalypse bills as
    well) and so, many pro-2A organizations and businesses should work together and move quickly to get an injunction to halt the Gunpocalypse bills (AB 857 and others passed in July 2016) before they are allowed to become operational - not after.

    Registration is among several gun control measures that are being challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds in the wake of two U.S. Supreme Court rulings that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms (District of Columbia v. Heller (128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010)). Though Heller v. District of Columbia, 698 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.C. 2010) upheld a form of registration, this was not at the U.S. Supreme Court level, and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) at U.S. Supreme Court never tackled the issue of whether registration itself is unconstitutional.

    Bear in mind that under the new U.S. Supreme Court with Gorsuch we do have a chance to overturn such laws as AB 857 which are arguably unconstitutional on numerous grounds even before taking into account the issue of the Second Amendment itself!

    Licensing schemes, which were assumed to be legal in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), are different than today's registration schemes in California (based on Gunpocalypse bills) which would cause the state to retain owner data AND which have the object of prohibition(!!).

    In the case of D. Anthony Heller, Et. Al., Appellants v. District of Columbia, Et. Al., Appellees, on Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case number No. 1:08-cv01289, the gun registration requirement proposed by the jurisdiction was actually DEFEATED in a September 18, 2015 decision. (The jurisdiction at the lower court level managed to get some of its registration requirements sustained but various others were actually struck down.) Again, however, this was not tested at the U.S. Supreme Court and as yet unexamined was the extreme level of unconstitutional activity (including prior restraint, unconstitutional use of law to attempt to compel serialization and registration, etc.) that has been employed in CA (AB 857). Arguably, AB 857 and laws like it in CA are already void on the basis that they are not constitutional; thus the case could readily be made to the (new) U.S. Supreme Court that they should be stricken down.

    Some claims have been made (basically by liberal gun controller types) that (regarding Justice v. Cicero, 577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009) if Heller applied to the states and local governments, the town's mandatory registration requirement would still be constitutional because, unlike law struck down in Heller, the Cicero ordinance supposedly regulates, but does not prohibit, gun possession.

    However, it is plain that the registration requirements in California are developed for the purpose of ultimate PROHIBITION, as has been seen by the development of SB 880 and AB 1135, which have the ultimate intent of actual prohibition following registration, prohibition of transfer, and prohibition of purchase (with the ultimate effect of large numbers and types of weapons in common use being prohibited) and as has been seen by the development of AB 857, which attempts to prohibit people's ability to make their own firearms.

    Thus, there can be no logical claim that a registration requirement in the state of California (including any serialization or registration requirement under AB 857) is constitutional using the Justice v. Cicero argument or any argument at all. AB 857 fails due to that it is plainly unconstitutional. The law is thus invalid, not merely because of its unconstitutionality, but because there is no legal basis for registration to be applied. The law (AB 857) is also "void for vagueness," since a person who is engaging in the "making" of their own receiver in their own home who never has any intent to sell or transfer the receiver they make, technically cannot be considered to fall within AB 857 if we consider the meaning of the word "make" as it is understood in the NFA (current statute). Yet if the state will consider it to apply to anyone who is an 80 percent builder it shows that the state is simply engaged in making up laws that have no meaning (not only when compared to the Constitution, which is superior, but even in light of comparison to the legal definitions which the state has failed to provide, preferring to engage in regular ritual abuses of discretion). Thus this whole scenario must be considered to be completely unconstitutional and must be overturned by the courts.

    Finally, even if an argument for registration of rifles is later upheld at the US Supreme Court (which has not yet happened - as anyone here knows, or should know, you are not required to register a rifle that you make or that you have bought), there can be no claim that people who finish their own lower receiver from an eighty percent lower receiver are going to build a "rifle" that would be subject to registration as defined by the courts. That is because various build configurations exist that for firearms that are classified as neither Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, or AOW under either State and/or Federal law. An eighty-percenter can be used as part of the process to be made into ANY configuration - and any claim that it must necessarily become a rifle (or pistol) is FALSE.

    Ultimately, however, with the California Legislature's ultimate intent of actual prohibition following registration, prohibition of transfer, and prohibition of purchase (with the ultimate effect of large numbers and types of weapons in common use being prohibited), any registration "requirement" in the State of California becomes unconstitutional.

    Under present law (before AB 857 becomes effective - as it has not yet reached the effective date) the user can make their own mark on their receiver that they finish from an eighty percenter and need not engage in any form of registration (nor should they after the effective date of the law, anyway). They basically can engage in voluntary serialization for the purposes of marking when they made it or creating a mark that they can use to document what the weapon looks like and what date it was made in the event their weapon is stolen and they need to show law enforcement later. But they need not show or register with law enforcement when putting their own mark on the eighty percenter.

    Furthermore,
    AB 857, which has been signed into law, clearly violates the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; I also believe it to be a violation of the 1st Amendment (because it bars a user from engaging in certain types of free expression and forces a user to accept only that expression or marks upon a weapon which the State would permit or
    issue), see for example, Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. (Attorney General Kamala) Harris, a (ongoing, but successful thus far) case in which a gun shop owner argued that he should be able to post signs with handguns on them visible from a store window despite California's ban on such speech (though not complete, the case is in progress).

    California is not legally allowed to impose certain types of expression (such as a serialization and registration mark) and deny others or demand that the user apply to the
    DoJ for a mark that only the State can provide (as it tries to do with AB 857). This is unconstitutional and violates the 1st Amendment. (See also The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test), developed as a result of the Brandenburg v. Ohio (US Supreme Court) decision that struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, explicitly overruled Whitney v. California and cast doubt on Schenck v. United States, Abrams v. United States, Gitlow v. New York (1925), and
    Dennis v. United States.

    We have a responsibility to fight unconstitutional laws and the Gunpocalypse laws are clearly such laws as I have described above in discussing AB 857 and other Gunpocalypse laws.
    Calif. is big on "registration" yes. I am not sure why though.

    It is one of those self defeating laws that accomplishes nothing other than letting the dope smoking State Legislature make it seem look and feel like they are accomplishing something -- which in reality they are not.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    This guy is also super smart on the issues and on registration and CA he just says "NO."

    Great video.



    Back on topic of challenging these stupid laws:

    Has anyone yet seriously consulted with their lawyer about it? To ask their lawyer / legal advisor:

    1) What are the requirements and timeline for challenging these (CA) laws in federal court (possibly under 42 USC § 1983) and and how long do I (or anyone else for that matter) have to do so now that the bills have been signed into law?

    2) What is the process for developing a case such that various people across the state could become involved as plaintiffs in a bill of peace, a.k.a. class action lawsuit?
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  7. #6
    In California you are so outnumbered by Communist legislators and Communist judges including the 9th Circuit that you really don't have a chance to make any headway against their ridiculous laws. Think of Peruta -- he got all the way to the petit CA-9 successfully, then the entire en banc CA-9 overturned him.

    Registration is not infringing ownership in the home. So it is going to be hard to make any headway against these laws.

    Now that I have left California and nobody in my new state knows anything about any of my guns, I feel safe again.

    Nobody is going to come knocking on my door.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

    Hence the need.

    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    In California you are so outnumbered by Communist legislators and Communist judges including the 9th Circuit that you really don't have a chance to make any headway against their ridiculous laws. Think of Peruta -- he got all the way to the petit CA-9 successfully, then the entire en banc CA-9 overturned him.

    Registration is not infringing ownership in the home. So it is going to be hard to make any headway against these laws.

    Now that I have left California and nobody in my new state knows anything about any of my guns, I feel safe again.

    Nobody is going to come knocking on my door.
    Hence the need to (A) resist unconstitutional regulations and laws so far as is humanly possible with techniques like this and to (B) appeal these **** laws all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court to get them overturned.

    I dispute the assertion that registration "does not infringe ownership in the home;" registration leads to confiscation and registration is unconstitutional. But as pointed out in my longer post above, the legal argument hasn't been made yet at the U.S. Supreme Court either to definitively defend or reject registration; all that can be said right now is that previous cases and precedents should indicate to anyone with a level head and common sense that registration is, indeed, unconstitutional. As I pointed out earlier, "Some claims have been made (basically by liberal gun controller types) that (regarding Justice v. Cicero, 577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009) if Heller applied to the states and local governments, the town's mandatory registration requirement would still be constitutional because, unlike law struck down in Heller, the Cicero ordinance supposedly regulates, but does not prohibit, gun possession. However, it is plain that the registration requirements in California are developed for the purpose of ultimate PROHIBITION, as has been seen by the development of SB 880 and AB 1135, which have the ultimate intent of actual prohibition following registration, prohibition of transfer, and prohibition of purchase (with the ultimate effect of large numbers and types of weapons in common use being prohibited) and as has been seen by the development of AB 857, which attempts to prohibit people's ability to make their own firearms."

    So again, these type of registration laws are in fact, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (This is even before taking into account the prior restraint issue and the unconstitutional coercion by government to force expression of a certain type of speech (accounting for forced serialization on the receiver of a number issued by government) which is unconstitutional on the basis of prior 1st Amendment case law - not even taking into account the 2nd amendment).

    Yes indeed, registration is unconstitutional and must be resisted in the home as well as appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Otherwise these laws will end up becoming precedent for the nation and not just in the jurisdiction of the 9th or the 4th Circuit Courts (which are huge enough areas involving many states, anyway).

    * Note: The Ninth Circuit decisions impact the following states (NOT JUST CALIFORNIA!)
    District of Alaska.
    District of Arizona.
    Central District of California.
    Eastern District of California.
    Northern District of California.
    Southern District of California.
    District of Hawaii.
    The Fourth Circuit decisions impact the following states:
    Virginia (I'm not sure what parts, but certainly part of it)
    District of Maryland.
    Eastern District of North Carolina.
    Middle District of North Carolina

    So no more of this "oh the crazy court decisions or crazy legislators just are going to hurt CALIFORNIA." Because that's not true.

    In the meantime, until a decision to overturn can be rendered at the U.S. Supreme Court level which would make life a bit easier, simply resist at every turn and challenge these laws yourself!
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  9. #8
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Note:

    Please remain on point when replying to this question. If you are going to respond by claiming "registration is OK" (which it is NOT) or "it's impossible to contest these blah blah" please don't bother to reply, start your own thread. I am looking for people who WANT to overturn these laws in the COURTS and like myself have been looking for people who will ACTUALLY DO THAT.

    Please answer the following question "yes" or "no." If "yes" please let me know by private message or by reply in this thread what you have done or who you think would be good to connect with to move these cases forward if you have already found a lawyer.

    Has anyone yet seriously consulted with their lawyer about (challenging the CA Gunpocalypse laws)? To ask their lawyer / legal advisor:

    1) What are the requirements and timeline for challenging these (CA) laws in federal court (possibly under 42 USC § 1983) and and how long do I (or anyone else for that matter) have to do so now that the bills have been signed into law?

    2) What is the process for developing a case such that various people across the state could become involved as plaintiffs in a bill of peace, a.k.a. class action lawsuit?
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  10. #9
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    As an update to this, today (about 4 hours ago) I got an unsolicited e-mail from the Coalition for Civil Liberties (I'm on their e-mail list since I've donated to them before).

    Their e-mail update stated in part,

    "we’re filing lawsuits to fight back against Prop 63 – and other Second Amendment issues – in court. And with your help, it’s going to happen this week."

    I'm not donating any more until I see those lawsuits filed. If they say it's happening this week they can file it this week, then I'll donate some. But I do get tired of hearing that it's going to happen, going to happen, going to happen. I've donated enough and have spent a lot of time spreading the word about FPC / FPF, Calguns, and Coalition for Civil Lliberties fundraising campaigns which are supposedly intended to raise fees for legal cases to overturn Gunpocalypse laws signed into law July 2016, and to overturn Prop 63.

    So I'll wait and see if they do in fact file lawsuits this week. Until then I will continue to ask and suggest if anyone else, like me, has been investigating into doing it themselves (challenging these (CA) laws in federal court (possibly under 42 USC § 1983), or developing a bill of peace / class action lawsuit).
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  11. #10
    If you resist state law in California they will haul your azz off to prison.

    And the NRA won't be able to save you either because as Scalia points out in Heller, States' Rights (10th Amendment) supersedes Gun Rights (2nd Amendment).

    There is no hope left in California -- other than moving to Sacramento while this current sheriff is in office there.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast