TexDefender
Ultimate Member
- Feb 28, 2017
- 1,574
California microstamping upheld
- Thread starter justiw
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Ok, was there a clause in the CA law grandfathering vehicles in until the drop dead date of the law? Also, was there a grandfathering of firearms until the technology became available? NJ had the clause regarding the Smart Gun and handguns were available until the Smart Gun became viable.
Q
danb
dont be a dumbass
I find this opinion a surreal, like Alice in Wonderland. Its like random sentences put together, which add up to no meaning whatsoever. They cannot invalidate the statute because there is no underlying constitutional challenge. Or because they did not challenge the certificate of validity. Or something. Not sure what.
Deep Thought
Active Member
I can't recall vehicle emissions being one of our enumerated rights in the constitution... (interstate commerce and pursuit of happiness aside.) Self defense via firearms I seem to recall a prominent constitutional amendment. 
I don't understand how this is possible.
I don't understand how this is possible.
TexDefender
Ultimate Member
- Feb 28, 2017
- 1,574
The problem in this case is the lawyer for the Pro-Gun side in my opinion. There were several holes they did not exploit. For example the demand that the weapon serial be some how magically transferred to the bullet and the failure of the law in principle. The law is nothing more than a will list, it like saying car's VIN number must some how be identified by the oil they leak.
And criminals won't "innovate" to using steel case ammo, revolvers, or dumping spent brass that they pick up at the range?
Another ruling that makes a mockery of Heller. Only new handguns that can be bought are ones that don't yet exist.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
If there is a LE exception in the law, it's an admission that they know that it will impede new handgun purchases without the technology being widely in place.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
- Aug 17, 2011
- 26,177
The majority of Ca's firearms infringements have an exemption for the Legislature and LE, I'd be genuinely floored if this one didn't as well.
Deep Thought
Active Member
It should be illegal for a legislature to exempt itself from laws it enacts.
- Aug 17, 2011
- 26,177
Agreed. But it doesn't always happen.
No exemptions, period. If it's being thrust upon the citizens, then the same should apply from top-down.
RepublicOfFranklin
Ultimate Member
I wonder if instead of CalExit we offered LA and San Fran a deal to become independent city states if they would take it. It’d be worth the issues involved to have them no longer able to influence US law.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd be happier to offer them sovereign status. That way they could sink under the weight of debt. The only issue is that China would buy that up.
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,802
Seriously? Impossible legislation is good to go?
So do handguns on the California roster have a shelf life, then must be approved again? This stamping thing could literally ban new handguns in time.
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/removed.pdf
Amigo109
Active Member
This is a thinly veiled gun ban. Passing a law prohibiting all but non existant guns, and guns that will not BECOME available in the for sealed future is a straight up ban of new gun sales. Taking this ti the logical extreme, It's like saying "we didn't ban new gun sales, we just said all new guns need to be able to levitate. If you can find any floating guns, you can legally buy them." And even a temporary ban (until such guns that are legal become available) is still a ban.
I'm sure CA legislatures are betting that the innovation necessary to comply with the law would be 1.expensive, making gun purchases harder to nearly impossible for most people (the law abiding type) and 2. A long time coming. So it would be a ban until the industry can respond. Also, if you don't think they actually WANT to make criminals out of law abiding 2A supporters, yo u are naive. The left has shown real disdain for anyone who doesn't agree with their world view. I'm sure they have wide grins all around when they come up with new ways to hurt conservatives (financially, politically, socially.) They treat "getting their way" as all out war. No holds barred.
I'm sure CA legislatures are betting that the innovation necessary to comply with the law would be 1.expensive, making gun purchases harder to nearly impossible for most people (the law abiding type) and 2. A long time coming. So it would be a ban until the industry can respond. Also, if you don't think they actually WANT to make criminals out of law abiding 2A supporters, yo u are naive. The left has shown real disdain for anyone who doesn't agree with their world view. I'm sure they have wide grins all around when they come up with new ways to hurt conservatives (financially, politically, socially.) They treat "getting their way" as all out war. No holds barred.
- Feb 17, 2011
- 14,024
I guess someone needs to pass a law that exercise of free speech can only be done by people with master degrees in mass communications...
Considering the court ruled that it's fine if the law is impossible to comply with, they could pass a law that exercise of free speech can only be done by people with a masters degree obtained from a university whose campus is located in the center of the sun. Per the state's reasoning - as accepted by the court - this will spur innovation which will allow us to travel to and construct buildings in the center of an active star.
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,802
My immediate thought was some are citing MGA legislated terms of how to grandfather bumpstocks, that isn't possible. With this reasoning in California, that could be as well good to go here.
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
At some point, the laws became so burdensome, ambiguous, and impossible to comply with, that they became ignored and scoffed at...
I fear some point that people openly ignore SCOTUS rulings and dare the administrative to force corrective action. Hell, the left is probably there already.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I fear some point that people openly ignore SCOTUS rulings and dare the administrative to force corrective action. Hell, the left is probably there already.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Sort of. The case was not really a 2A case. It was a case that determined if one part of the CA laws invalidated another section because of impossibility. They said no it does not invalidate it.
There was no determination if the microstamping infringed on 2A rights. It did not even determine if the AG's finding of acceptable technology was valid. They all agree the AG simply found that it was not encumbered by patents and no determination was made if it were feasible.
Another poorly argued case in my opinion.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Big SCOTUS conference coming up 5/16 on Assault Weapons Bans
- Started by Steel Hunter
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
