United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

Reader mode
DarthOne

DarthOne

☦️
bullethead said:
California taking some big Ls in its dumb handgun roster lawsuit:
Article:
NEW: Boland v. Bonta (C.D. CA): President of PORAC, the largest law enforcement organization in California, files declaration in opposition to the state's handgun roster, saying it "unjustifiably privilege law enforcement over the average citizen". https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.858747/gov.uscourts.cacd.858747.57.2.pdf

Fpxr4KNWwAAy-fb

Fpxr4LfWAAEA9nZ

Fpxr4NAXoAE6RBa

Fpxr4NuWIAAu2sK

Article:
"The UHA arbitrarily deems as 'unsafe' the handguns that thousands of police officers in the state use to protect society and to protect themselves on a daily basis... But these weapons are not truly unsafe, and are merely deemed unsafe for political reasons."

Article:
"There is no principled reason why all law-abiding citizens in California... should not be able to buy, at a gun store, the same type of handguns that are commonly issued to approximately 77,000 peace officers while they are on-duty in California."

Article:
"The guns issued or authorized by law enforcement agencies in California are not unsafe... These handguns do not become unsafe at the end of an officer's shift or career, nor are they unsafe in the hands of a law-abiding citizen."

Article:
"We found out about the existence of this case too late to file an amicus brief with this Court in time for its ruling on the preliminary injunction. We intend to request leave to file such a brief prior to trial or summary judgment in this matter."
Click to expand...
That’s nice. Now let’s see if anyone will actually bother to enforce it, or if like California and New York have done before now, they’ll just ignore it and do whatever the hell they like.
 
California Handgun Roster hit with injunction preventing enforcement
  • Threadmarks
    • bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    California takes another L:
    Article:
    BREAKING: Boland v. Bonta (C.D. CA): Judge issues preliminary injunction against the California handgun roster's chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and microstamping requirements.


    Frrynz2WICoCiN_

    Frryn2PXwAI2tL_

    Frryn4AWIBICb7U

    Frryn42XwAA1XKY

    Article:
    "No handgun available in the world has all three of these features."

    Frr-yrMXwAMvrZG

    Article:
    "The result of this is that when Californians today buy a handgun at a store, they are largely restricted to models from over sixteen years ago."

    Frr-7l_WIAMObjx

    Article:
    "Since these requirements were added to the UHA, only 32 semiautomatic pistols have been added to the Roster that have a CLI and MDM."

    "This number is misleadingly high, as the Roster treats handguns that are the same except for small details... as different handguns."

    Frr_XTnWAAI0ao4

    Article:
    "Although the California Department of Justice certified on May 17, 2013 that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions, the technology still was not available."

    Frr_55nX0AAoVfX

    Article:
    "Every single handgun on the Roster is a grandfathered handgun—one the California legislature now deems 'unsafe.'"

    FrsAIkWWIAEGB2a

    Article:
    "[The UHA's prohibition] does not apply to sales to law enforcement personnel, personnel from agencies including the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Justice, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, and the district attorney's office, or any member of the military."

    FrsAZqbWAAQjS7b

    Article:
    "The challenged UHA provisions unquestionably infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Plaintiffs seek to purchase state-of-the-art handguns for self-defense. The UHA prevents this."

    FrsBBtcWYAEQgeq

    Article:
    "Requiring Californians to purchase only outdated handguns for self-defense without question infringes their right to keep and bear arms."

    FrsBP-yXgAMTvWm

    Article:
    "Indeed, the Constitution protects much more than the bare right to keep and bear any outdated firearm for self-defense. The Second Amendment also protects attendant rights that make the underlying right to keep and bear arms meaningful."

    FrsBeNOWIAI1hey

    FrsBfw9WcAErYcQ

    FrsBhZOWYAEIFKw

    Article:
    "Contrary to the government's assertion, the fact that Californians may purchase other firearms... does not mean that the Second Amendment does not cover their proposed conduct of purchasing state-of-the-art handguns on the primary market."

    FrsB6RbWIAAasgE

    FrsB7zQWYAEXD6K

    Article:
    "The government proffers two historical analogues to the UHA's CLI and MDM requirements: 'proving' laws and gunpowder storage laws. Neither is sufficiently analogous."

    FrsChEhXsAA_H2f

    Article:
    "Put simply, requiring each model of handgun to contain additional features to potentially help a user safely operate the handgun is completely different from ensuring that each firearm's basic features were adequately manufactured for safe operation."

    FrsCpWnXwAAAyJl

    FrsCtWSWAAMVNCc

    FrsCvtjWYAM4xNj

    Article:
    "The main goal of the gunpowder storage laws was to prevent fire... In contrast, the CLI and MDM requirements are meant to prevent inadvertent discharge or firing of the firearm."

    FrsDTGJXgAEaqf5

    FrsDhhSXoAE8jvr

    Article:
    "Next, the government argues that... 'historical analogues sufficient to support the federal law prohibiting the possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number are sufficient to support the microstamping requirement'... The Court is not persuaded."

    FrsD0Z3WAAArhjR

    FrsERtGWAAIU9Oc

    Article:
    "Without a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the UHA's CLI, MDM, and microstamping provisions, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm because the government will continue infringing their Second Amendment rights."

    FrsEhiSWwAQX_Gd

    Article:
    Article:
    "The government cannot credibly argue that handguns without CLI, MDM, and microstamping features pose unacceptable public safety risks when virtually all of the handguns available on the Roster and sold in California today lack those features."

    FrsEvhOWAAQcJ0R

    Article:
    "Similarly, if Off-Roster firearms were truly unsafe, California would not allow law enforcement to use them in the line of duty, when the stakes are highest."

    FrsE-LSWcAMuT9Q

    Article:
    "The likelihood that a person will purchase a handgun with a CLI and MDM and that those features will prevent accidental shootings, injuries, or deaths is entirely speculative."

    FrsFXgSWYAAnvkg

    Article:
    "[Californians] should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home. But unfortunately, the UHA's CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements do exactly that."

    FrsFq28WYAI03na
     
  • Threadmarks
    • S

    ShadowArxxy

    Well-known member
    Comrade
    I like the chamber load indicator on my XDM, but safely handling a firearm without one is absolutely straightforward so I don't really that as even remotely legitimate as a "safety requirement". Conversely, I am a huge not-fan of magazine disconnects; the circumstances under which they're theoretically helpful are so narrow and specific as to make them silly at best.

    IMO, both of these features should be left up to the market -- people who want them can pick models that have them, people who don't like them should be free to do without.
     
    bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    ShadowArxxy said:
    Conversely, I am a huge not-fan of magazine disconnects; the circumstances under which they're theoretically helpful are so narrow and specific as to make them silly at best.
    Click to expand...
    I swear a few guns have shown up on Forgotten Weapons with them, and in pistols, they make it impossible to disassemble the gun without sticking a mag or rod in it to depress the disconnect.

    It doesn't take a genius to see the potential safety problem.
     
    Vetrom

    Vetrom

    war
    bullethead said:
    I swear a few guns have shown up on Forgotten Weapons with them, and in pistols, they make it impossible to disassemble the gun without sticking a mag or rod in it to depress the disconnect.

    It doesn't take a genius to see the potential safety problem.
    Click to expand...
    Even without that, more mechanical complication in a firearm is more potential failure points, and usually more expense. A case could be made that the required features don't add utility in line with their expense, and are actually a backdoor tax on the exercise of a right.

    Not sure that argument would hold in court though.
     
    S

    ShadowArxxy

    Well-known member
    Comrade
    Captain X said:
    And I'd argue that unless the police and military were forced to have them in their weapons that civilians can't be required to have them either.
    Click to expand...

    I'd argue that if properly refined to work reasonably well, a "smart' locking gun and/or magazine disconnect would be of limited but real utility to police, but useless to any other general category of firearm user. Simple reason -- police have to get within hand-to-hand range of a suspect in order to subdue and cuff them, no one else needs to be doing that.
     
    bullethead

    bullethead

    Part-time fanfic writer
    Super Moderator
    Staff Member
    Here's a great bit of legal writing about how dumb Illinois arguments are about the guns/features it bans (see the list here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.37.3.pdf)
    Article:
    "Such hyperbole, conflating weapons powerful enough to destroy entire cities with common and ordinary firearms is not becoming our State officials, or their attorneys. It is also a flat out falsehood, like much of their argument."

    Fr_790CXgAAX7d1
     
    S

    ShadowArxxy

    Well-known member
    Comrade
    Bacle said:


    Man, leaning on the laws used to disarm black and indians back in the day to make any legal argument against Bruen really shows the mask slippage for the Left.

    I expect this will get kicked to a higher court soonish.
    Click to expand...


    This is legally correct, if morally incorrect, and it is exactly how a lower court is supposed to rule -- challenging the legal precedent or the law itself is a matter for higher courts, so the most the lower court can do is structure its ruling in a matter that emphasizes the matter.

    It is an important principle for consistency of law that past precedents which are culturally/morally out of date but were never either repealed by legislative action or overturned by a high court ruling, remain valid precedents. That is why, for example, any state could in fact lawfully start imposing involuntary sterilization on convicts -- the only limiting precedent is that if such a penalty is used, white collar criminals cannot be exempted.

    In essence, changing the rules is never a tacit action.
     
    LordsFire

    LordsFire

    Internet Wizard
    ShadowArxxy said:
    This is legally correct, if morally incorrect, and it is exactly how a lower court is supposed to rule -- challenging the legal precedent or the law itself is a matter for higher courts, so the most the lower court can do is structure its ruling in a matter that emphasizes the matter.

    It is an important principle for consistency of law that past precedents which are culturally/morally out of date but were never either repealed by legislative action or overturned by a high court ruling, remain valid precedents. That is why, for example, any state could in fact lawfully start imposing involuntary sterilization on convicts -- the only limiting precedent is that if such a penalty is used, white collar criminals cannot be exempted.

    In essence, changing the rules is never a tacit action.
    Click to expand...

    'Shall not be infringed.'

    Any ruling in the USA that restricts the constitutional right of citizens who are not convicted of a crime is unlawful. Notably, arms are the only specific property named in the constitution.
     
    Morphic Tide

    Morphic Tide

    Well-known member
    LordsFire said:
    'Shall not be infringed.'

    Any ruling in the USA that restricts the constitutional right of citizens who are not convicted of a crime is unlawful. Notably, arms are the only specific property named in the constitution.
    Click to expand...
    I think the point being made is that the judge in question isn't high enough to actively contradict those very old rulings, for all it's quite likely to be a case of hunting for a supporting position rather than honest respect for following the proper procedures for reform.
     
    P

    PeaceMaker 03

    Well-known member
    Morphic Tide said:
    I think the point being made is that the judge in question isn't high enough to actively contradict those very old rulings, for all it's quite likely to be a case of hunting for a supporting position rather than honest respect for following the proper procedures for reform.
    Click to expand...
    Bull-Pucky, it is or it is not unconstitutional, any law that is unconstitutional is “VOID”, per that old white guy who helped draft the constitution.

    What would he know?
     
    S

    ShadowArxxy

    Well-known member
    Comrade
    LordsFire said:
    'Shall not be infringed.'

    Any ruling in the USA that restricts the constitutional right of citizens who are not convicted of a crime is unlawful. Notably, arms are the only specific property named in the constitution.
    Click to expand...

    I think you're missing my point, which is that a lower court does not have the authority to declare law or precedent unconstitutional. The limit of their authority in a matter like this is to structure their ruling to clearly highlight the deficiency such that a higher court and/or the relevant legislature can take action, and that is exactly what this court has done.

    You didn't think a judge would cite those particularly odious examples so prominently otherwise, did you?
     
    Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Top