Sign in to follow this  
Hypercapnic Tom

Uncooperative Californicators

Recommended Posts

Nutter victory in the 9th Circuit - Californicators will be allowed to keep standard capacity magazines for now
 

Quote

 

In another blow to Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s anti-gun agenda, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday, upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of Proposition 63’s restriction on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Following the enactment of Proposition 63, CRPA attorneys sought an injunction against the magazine possession ban, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment, as well as the due process and takings clauses of the United States Constitution. Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction just days before the law was set to take effect. California quickly appealed the decision.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Judge Benitez did not abuse his discretion, holding that he applied the correct legal standards and made reasonable inferences based on the record. But one judge on the panel disagreed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of all the places the 9th... lol good job gun grabbers, #walkaway the #redwave is coming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microstamping requirement upheld in the ninth circuit

The majority said that the fact that it means new gun models can't be sold in that state doesn't matter because the gun companies could make them if they wanted to.

The dissent points out that even the inventor doesn't believe that's the case, since the law requires imprints legible by optical microscope and the inventor says an electron microscope is necessary. He also raises a technical objection that the legislature can not have considered standards that were written up after the legislation in question was passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Microstamping requirement upheld in the ninth circuit

The majority said that the fact that it means new gun models can't be sold in that state doesn't matter because the gun companies could make them if they wanted to.

The dissent points out that even the inventor doesn't believe that's the case, since the law requires imprints legible by optical microscope and the inventor says an electron microscope is necessary. He also raises a technical objection that the legislature can not have considered standards that were written up after the legislation in question was passed.

Ummmm  - the magazine disconnector & loaded gun indicator, BFD. Lots of handguns have had one or both for decades, you could argue this is just best practice.

The stamping of every fired cartridge case with a unique ID - good luck with *that* one..... wonder how they think it's going to work with revolvers which don't spit their cartridge cases everywhere with gay abandon.

Not to mention some scofflaw with a file. I mean, whoever thinks that'll never happen - just like nobody intending a criminal act has ever removed a serial number.

Also the minor detail that barrels & slides aren't restricted by the ATF so it's dead easy to buy a replacement slide with a totally different (or no) serial number stamping system without running foul of Federal law. Therefore someone in another State could tool up to make spares quite legally.

All in all another demonstration that the people making the laws have not a single clue about the real world.

Personally I think they should mandate a RFID in every single projectile made and log them all, complete chain of custody from manufacturer to end user. There'd be a metric shitload of money to be made keeping track of that lot and I'm in the database biz, more or less.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Ummmm  - the magazine disconnector & loaded gun indicator, BFD. Lots of handguns have had one or both for decades, you could argue this is just best practice.

The argument has been made in our courts. I found it stupid and said so.

I would argue that it's not best practice just because lots more handguns do not have them.

The reason is reliability. If there's a mechanism that disables the gun if the magazine is out, it might just have a failure mode where it disables the gun, period.

The dissenting Justice pointed out that these features are prevented from coming to market because new models must also comply with microstamping standards that the microstamping inventor says won't work. He's an interesting character, by the way. The usual suspicion that he's promoting this technology for profit doesn't apply. He put it in the public domain because he believes in it. I think he's deluded for the reasons you gave and others, but I do admire people who put their money where their mouth is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The argument has been made in our courts. I found it stupid and said so.

I would argue that it's not best practice just because lots more handguns do not have them.

Which would *have* to be one of the most idiotic arguments ever made, IMO.

Was it best practice to put safety guards on rotating machinery? After all, when the first guard went on, nearly all machines weren't guarded. How about light curtains and other devices on stamping presses? ABS brakes on cars? I could go on but I'm sure other readers get the point even though I'm pretty sure you'll obfuscate and duck.

I had a quite expensive (the Govt paid) education on OH&S compliance and best practice back when I used to manage a R&D group.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Which would *have* to be one of the most idiotic arguments ever made, IMO.

It's an argument about consumer preference, not necessarily what's best.

I do remove safety guards from machines with rotating blades and wheels, btw. The damn things seem designed to prevent useful work so I take my chances.

Speaking of which, you ignored the better argument, made more fully in the other thread. Which is, police departments have tried and rejected guns with magazine disconnect devices for the reason I stated: reliability. Which also explains the broader consumer preference noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our condition went "dogballs", starring Tom Ray. Good job, @Uncooperative Tom   The form of censorship was appreciated, and deserved, IMO. Where was this development discussed on the boards? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord another thread with nutty tom talking to himself for the most part.  Joker also shares blame for this useless thread.

SAD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bull Gator would be loving this.

NY TImes Praises California Ammunition Restrictions

Quote

 

Gun control advocates here have pushed to limit internet sales, ban large-capacity magazines, require sellers to have licenses, raise taxes on bullets, and mandate serial numbers or other traceable markings on ammunition so that the police can more easily track them.

Such regulations, several of which have been enacted and take effect this year and next, are inspired by the view that the best way to limit gun violence is to approach it as a “bullet control” problem. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat from New York, told the Senate 25 years ago, when he introduced legislation that would have imposed a 10,000-percent tax on hollow-tip ammunition, “guns don’t kill people; bullets do.”

...

On the other side of the debate, Jesse Figueroa, a manager at M & J gun store in downtown Sacramento, said that he was glad the ban on home deliveries of online ammunition purchases would drive more customers to his store. But he dismissed other rules, like microstamping and ammunition record-keeping, as futile in stopping criminals from using guns.

“These measures,” he said, “are all just a way to slowly chip away at our right to bear arms.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Strikes Down Ban On Handgun Ads

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-handguns/judge-strikes-down-95-year-old-california-ban-on-storefront-handgun-ads-idUSKCN1LS2I5
 

Quote

 

In a decision made public on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley in Sacramento, the state’s capital, said the law was “unconstitutional on its face” because it violated dealers’ commercial $peech rights under the First Amendment.

“The government may not restrict speech that persuades adults, who are neither criminals nor suffer from mental illness, from purchasing a legal and constitutionally-protected product, merely because it distrusts their personality trait and the decisions that personality trait may lead them to make later down the road,” the judge wrote.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn, I was hoping for at least one "must be a TeamR judge paid by the NRA to do anything for gunz" attack on the judge, so I could post this part of the article:

Quote

Nunley was appointed by former U.S. President Barack Obama.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass Shooting In Oakland
 

Quote

 

Authorities said that a 20-year-old Vallejo man and an 18-year-old Vallejo man were in different groups with other people who got into a dispute that ended with gunfire. They were both wounded and taken to a hospital where they were listed in critical but stable condition and placed under arrest.

Two guns were recovered at the scene, police said.

The gunfire also wounded another 18-year-old man, a 32-year-old Redwood City man and a 46-year-old Brentwood man, authorities said.

...

Police are still investigating what started the dispute that resulted in the gunfire

 

It's obvious what started the dispute: people like me owning squirrel assault weapons, which is why the SOLution to these mass shootings is to ban them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 3:57 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Mass Shooting In Oakland
 

It's obvious what started the dispute: people like me owning squirrel assault weapons, which is why the SOLution to these mass shootings is to ban them.

Squirrel assault weapons? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass Shooting In California
 

Quote

 

One man and three male juveniles were found at the scene with non-life threatening gunshot wounds, Chavarria said. They were taken to hospitals.

No suspect information was available, she said. Detectives from the Gang Detail were investigating the shooting as gang-related.

 

I'm sure that's a typo and "gun related" was the intended wording. After all, there were no deaths but four injuries, so that's a "mass" shooting and the political lesson here is that we must DO SOMETHYING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm still not convinced of your sincerity.  I think the biggest issue I have with your obsession for the dogball angle is that banning gunz that are squirrel shooters and have low powered rounds is JUST as silly as banning them based on cosmetic accessories such as flashhiders, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and the like.  But you seem to mostly ignore that silliness and instead concentrate on the dogball aspect.  Personally, I think you have Less of a case on the dogball front than I do on the silly accessory front.  A lot of people have been killed with dogball caliber rifles and pistols.  Personally, if I had the desire to murder anyone (which I absolutely do not), I would probably choose a suppressed dogball caliber handgun....  A dogball to the back of the skull would turn the lights out instantly.  And my suppressed dogball is scary quiet.  Hollywood quiet.  ;)

Anywho, it appears that if only scary black plastic high(er) powered rifles were on the chopping block and you could keep your handguns, shotties and dogballs - I doubt we would not be hearing from you quite as vigorously on the subject.  I'm happy to be wrong on this......


Sorry for moving your post, Jeff, but it's funnier in a thread in which I've complained extensively about a gun ban that explicitly excludes the censored caliber.

Hope you're happy about how wrong you were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2017 at 3:48 AM, cmilliken said:

This is usually what seems to happen. I've felt for a long time that the 'possession' laws are really just a quick bypass to lock people up when they - the police - don't really have evidence to prosecute the crime they were ACTUALLY arrested for.  It's cheaper and faster.  

 Any weapons charge hits like a train wreck, I hear. My brother was a drug counsellor, and he once made that offhand comment. But the Shasta County Sheriff names perps as the problem, when ownership by ordinary citizens is the thrust of the violation. 

There is  no parade or welcoming ceremony to being a felon. Citizens just slip into that state, while making other choices. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2018 at 3:23 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Mass Shooting In California
 

I'm sure that's a typo and "gun related" was the intended wording. After all, there were no deaths but four injuries, so that's a "mass" shooting and the political lesson here is that we must DO SOMETHYING.  DID THE GHOULISHNESS OVER MASS SHOOTINGS BEGIN HERE?

You are minimizing the recording of our daily multiple shootings? Big Temporary supported this type of thinking, indirectly. Big Temporary might not get the job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2018 at 5:51 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Update: Boulder residents have until the end of this month to surrender their previously-legal property.

As is traditional, I expect another rash of "boating accidents" to claim a great deal of the property in question this month. Who knew they did a lot of boating in Colorado in December? But I bet they do...

This guy sums it up:

Quote

“By definition, effective governing must be practical and enforceable,” Boulder resident John Ramey told the Camera. “When something isn’t enforceable, like the war on drugs, that’s a huge sign that the underlying legal model doesn’t match the actual problems and realities.

If you learn your neighbor has killed someone, you turn him in to the cops. If you learn he has smoked a forbidden plant or that a boating accident didn't really claim his scary gun, you probably shrug and move along. And that's why what to do with the Uncooperative types remains unanswered and so many felons in possession remain in limbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 That means this is a Second Amendment issue, and therefore our mission, like the NRAs, is NEVER over.  


Perhaps, but foreign meddling is only an indirectly related issue.

A much more relevant 2nd amendment issue would be the bans and confiscation programs, such as the one in your state.

Any thoughts on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 5:46 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Update: Boulder residents have until the end of this month to surrender their previously-legal property.

As is traditional, I expect another rash of "boating accidents" to claim a great deal of the property in question this month. Who knew they did a lot of boating in Colorado in December? But I bet they do...

This guy sums it up:

If you learn your neighbor has killed someone, you turn him in to the cops. If you learn he has smoked a forbidden plant or that a boating accident didn't really claim his scary gun, you probably shrug and move along. And that's why what to do with the Uncooperative types remains unanswered and so many felons in possession remain in limbo.

This is what corrosion looks like. The Russians do like this, to corrode decent values and democracy. Carry on Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

This is what corrosion looks like. The Russians do like this, to corrode decent values and democracy. Carry on Tom.

The vast majority of American and Canadian gun owners don't cooperate with the confiscation programs.

It's just because we want to continue owning our property and don't see the harm. Much like when you owned your assault weapon for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The vast majority of American and Canadian gun owners don't cooperate with the confiscation programs.

It's just because we want to continue owning our property and don't see the harm. Much like when you owned your assault weapon for decades.

Go ahead and break the law. Unlawful use at the time is your choice. You are pariahs, you are on your own now, with the constitution working against you.

Your children whisper among themselves now, a strange brew.

Robert Levy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is a felony conviction not a felony conviction?

When it's vacated, of course.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Except in California
 

Quote

 

While serving in the U.S. Navy more than three decades ago, Chad Linton pleaded guilty to driving under the influence, a misdemeanor, and attempting to evade a police vehicle, a Class C felony, in Island County, Washington. More than four decades ago, when he was 18, Paul Stewart was found guilty of first-degree burglary, a felony, after hopping a fence and stealing tools from an unlocked telephone company truck in Yuma County, Arizona. In both cases, the felony convictions were eventually vacated, and both men's firearm rights were restored.

But not according to the state of California, where Linton and Stewart have long led law-abiding lives. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains that their vacated felony convictions forever disqualify them from buying or possessing guns.

 

Gee, I wonder if it forever disqualifies them from voting?

Quote

Last week Linton and Stewart, joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three other gun rights groups, filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco, arguing that California's policy violates the Second Amendment, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Hmmm... I wish them well but that last one is a bit of a laugher. The P&I clause of the 14th amendment means nothing at all in practice and that will probably continue. The last time someone tried to change it, it was Alan Gura in the McDonald case. Only Scalia or Thomas could really be expected to help him. Thomas doesn't speak and Scalia told him to shut up and sit down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

When is a felony conviction not a felony conviction?

When it's vacated, of course.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Except in California
 

Gee, I wonder if it forever disqualifies them from voting?

Hmmm... I wish them well but that last one is a bit of a laugher. The P&I clause of the 14th amendment means nothing at all in practice and that will probably continue. The last time someone tried to change it, it was Alan Gura in the McDonald case. Only Scalia or Thomas could really be expected to help him. Thomas doesn't speak and Scalia told him to shut up and sit down.

How is that not judicial activism? Scalia's moves were cultish. He chose shitty info from Cramer and Malcolm if it worked for him.He cherry picked Lois Schwoerer skillfully: she debunked The Standard Model 32 years ago.

Libertarians manufacture hubris, IMO

Quote

Merkel 2010,

HELLER AS HUBRIS, AND HOW MCDONALD v. CITY OF CHICAGO MAY WELL CHANGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL WORLD AS WE KNOW IT 64pgs  William G. Merkel

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=lawreview

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 5:55 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Microstamping requirement upheld in the ninth circuit

The majority said that the fact that it means new gun models can't be sold in that state doesn't matter because the gun companies could make them if they wanted to.

The dissent points out that even the inventor doesn't believe that's the case, since the law requires imprints legible by optical microscope and the inventor says an electron microscope is necessary. He also raises a technical objection that the legislature can not have considered standards that were written up after the legislation in question was passed.

California's Slow Motion Handgun Ban Challenged To Supreme Court
 

Quote

 

Last year, Judge Margaret McKeown brushed aside Pena’s concerns over the shrinking roster that in 2013 contained 883 semi-automatics but by 2017 had contracted to 496, saying “all of the plaintiffs admit that they are able to buy an operable handgun suitable for self-defense — just not the exact gun they want.”

A similar case brought by gun industry groups was rejected by the California Supreme Court last year with justices there saying essentially that the law is the law, regardless of what was or wasn’t possible.

“Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute,” Justice Goodwin Liu said for the majority. “But impossibility does not authorize a court to go beyond interpreting a statute and simply invalidate it.”

Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, one of the groups in the California Supreme Court challenge, told Guns.com that the state is experiencing a “slow motion handgun ban as fewer and fewer models are allowed to be sold in the state. California is to handguns what Cuba is to cars; only old models are available.”

 

The "Safe Gun" list is likely to dwindle to zero semiautomatics before long as the 5 year periods on existing models expire and manufacturers do not attempt the impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

California's Slow Motion Handgun Ban Challenged To Supreme Court
 

The "Safe Gun" list is likely to dwindle to zero semiautomatics before long as the 5 year periods on existing models expire and manufacturers do not attempt the impossible.

Meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 8:46 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Only a few hundred "assault" weapons owners have complied. Contumacious TeamD hippies!

Mass Noncompliance
 

Quote

 

Boulder’s newly enacted “assault weapons” ban is meeting with stiff resistance from its “gun-toting hippies,” staunch liberals who also happen to be devoted firearms owners.

Only 342 “assault weapons,” or semiautomatic rifles, were certified by Boulder police before the Dec. 31 deadline, meaning there could be thousands of residents in the scenic university town of 107,000 in violation of the sweeping gun-control ordinance.

“I would say the majority of people I’ve talked to just aren’t complying because most people see this as a registry,” said Lesley Hollywood, executive director of the Colorado Second Amendment group Rally for Our Rights. “Boulder actually has a very strong firearms community.”

The ordinance, approved by the city council unanimously, banned the possession and sale of “assault weapons,” defined as semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip, folding stock, or ability to accept a detachable magazine. Semiautomatic pistols and shotguns are also included.

Current owners were given until the end of the year to choose one of two options: Get rid of their semiautomatics by moving them out of town, disabling them, or turning them over to police — or apply for a certificate with the Boulder Police Department, a process that includes a firearm inspection, background check and $20 fee.

Judging by the numbers, however, most Boulder firearms owners have chosen to do none of the above, albeit quietly.

“The firearms community in Boulder — they may be Democrats but they love their firearms,” said Ms. Hollywood

 

I haven't heard of any boating accidents yet. Maybe they don't boat that much up there? I guess a snowmobiling accident could also explain the disappearance of previously-legal property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, back in California, it's not a great idea to be a contumacious witness.
 

Quote

 

In People v. Partee (Cal. Ct. App. 2018), defendant was convicted not just of misdemeanor contempt but also of being accessory after the fact to murder for refusing to testify against family members in a gang killing case...

The offense could be punished as either a misdemeanor or a felony; here, defendant was sentenced to 365 days in jail and three years of probation for refusing to testify against family members. Defendant argued that her refusal to testify could only be punished as criminal contempt, and not on accessory-to-murder theory (which might in theory carry a much heavier penalty). The majority disagreed...

Judge Lamar Baker, dissenting in relevant part, disagreed:

For 82 years, Penal Code section 32 has proscribed "harbor[ing], conceal[ing] or aid[ing] a principal" in his or her commission of a prior felony. Today, the majority affirms convictions under this statute that are, so far as the Attorney General is aware, literally unprecedented in its 82-year history. No California case has ever sanctioned use of Penal Code section 32, the accessory statute, to mete out felony punishment for a witness who merely opts to remain silent (as distinguished from a witness who affirmatively tells some falsehood in a police interview or while on the witness stand to throw the police or the jury off track). Indeed, while I cannot claim to have conducted a fully exhaustive survey, I have discovered no court in any jurisdiction nationwide that has ever sanctioned this sort of an accessory after the fact prosecution.

The oddity of today's decision is no accident, nor is it a manifestation of the old adage that there must be a first time for everything. It is rather a product of well-intentioned but flawed legal reasoning that courts have heretofore avoided: Believing the statutorily authorized criminal penalty for refusing to testify (six months in jail) is too light a punishment for refusing to testify against defendants charged with murder, the majority blesses the invocation of Penal Code section 32, which imposes a higher penalty. As I shall discuss, however, authority dating back at least 50 years explains that resort for what might be viewed as overly light penalties for contumacious witnesses must be to the legislative process. A prosecuting office's decision to type up felony charges using a statute ill suited to the task is no adequate substitute, and the majority errs by refusing to say so.

These are just brief excerpts; if you're interested, you can read the full opinions.

UPDATE: Prof. Charles Weisselberg notes that the California Supreme Court has agreed to rehear the case; thanks, and sorry I didn't notice that originally.

 

I wonder what the California Supreme Court will do?


I wish I could change the thread title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Meanwhile, back in California, it's not a great idea to be a contumacious witness.
 

I wonder what the California Supreme Court will do?


I wish I could change the thread title.

 

That's pretty fucking evil.  I'm not a fan of compelled testimony in general and felony compulsion even less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

That's pretty fucking evil.  I'm not a fan of compelled testimony in general and felony compulsion even less so.

It's OK really.  They'll only use it against bad people who do bad things, however that may be defined at any particular time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The salient part isn't that that there are statutes against aiding and abetting.  Most states have rules against aiding and abetting.  The salient part is:

---------------------

"No California case has ever sanctioned use of Penal Code section 32, the accessory statute, to mete out felony punishment for a witness who merely opts to remain silent (as distinguished from a witness who affirmatively tells some falsehood in a police interview or while on the witness stand to throw the police or the jury off track)."

----------------------

They're not lying.  They're not covering up.   They're just keeping their mouth shut.  As in 'anything you say may be used against you in a court of law'.  I think compelled testimony is wrong and a gross judicial over-reach.  And I hope the California Supreme Court, upon rehearing, will rule that way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so CA is late to the game.

http://myfloridalegal.com/alerts.nsf/Print Slip Opinions/CF095455432817898525630E0067CF7D?OpenDocument

Mind you, I'm not absolving CA here. The point is that like many laws on the books this relies on prosecutorial discretion, spirit of the law rather than letter of the law. CA is no different in this case than from FLA where he lives and votes. Still it is a fine line from pointing out hypocrisy and tu quoque and to that point I'm not absolving CA. I'm just not going down Tom's rabbit hole.

This is a thing but it isn't just a CA thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Whatabout Florida Statute 777.03.

Fixed.

 

3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Ok, so CA is late to the game.

http://myfloridalegal.com/alerts.nsf/Print Slip Opinions/CF095455432817898525630E0067CF7D?OpenDocument

Mind you, I'm not absolving CA here. The point is that like many laws on the books this relies on prosecutorial discretion, spirit of the law rather than letter of the law. CA is no different in this case than from FLA where he lives and votes. Still it is a fine line from pointing out hypocrisy and tu quoque and to that point I'm not absolving CA. I'm just not going down Tom's rabbit hole.

This is a thing but it isn't just a CA thing.

 

Quote

A defendant may be convicted of being an accessory after the fact to a felony, even where the alleged perpetrator of the underlying felony is not convicted, the 3rd DCA said.

Unrelated to compelling testimony in the way California did. Unprecedented there as well as here, unless you have a better whatabout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mark K said:
On 2/3/2019 at 7:26 PM, Contumacious Tom said:

Another way of saying this would be.

So I think Steam Flyer just agreed with my point about the difference between eliminating nuisances like abandoned buildings and guns and eminent domain takings, which require compensation.

Except that I don't agree with my point on the guns thing.

 The slave owners thought the same way. Big Government stole their private property too, and worth a pretty penny it was. 

But eminent domain doesn't have anything to do with theft, nor does destruction of nuisance properties like abandoned houses and guns.

The grabbers do think the same way you're thinking: of taking property without any compensation. They even gave a date to turn in your naughty property, which was widely ignored by "boating accident" victims, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 4:28 PM, Olsonist said:

Ok, so CA is late to the game.

http://myfloridalegal.com/alerts.nsf/Print Slip Opinions/CF095455432817898525630E0067CF7D?OpenDocument

Mind you, I'm not absolving CA here. The point is that like many laws on the books this relies on prosecutorial discretion, spirit of the law rather than letter of the law. CA is no different in this case than from FLA where he lives and votes. Still it is a fine line from pointing out hypocrisy and tu quoque and to that point I'm not absolving CA. I'm just not going down Tom's rabbit hole.

This is a thing but it isn't just a CA thing.

 

Where was this post when I needed it?

16 hours ago, Olsonist said:

just bothsiderism and it's not even very good bothsiderism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 7:56 AM, cmilliken said:

 

That's pretty fucking evil.  I'm not a fan of compelled testimony in general and felony compulsion even less so.

The dissenting judge doesn't make any case against compelled testimony.

Quote

Believing the statutorily authorized criminal penalty for refusing to testify (six months in jail) is too light a punishment for refusing to testify against defendants charged with murder, the majority blesses the invocation of Penal Code section 32, which imposes a higher penalty. As I shall discuss, however, authority dating back at least 50 years explains that resort for what might be viewed as overly light penalties for contumacious witnesses must be to the legislative process. A prosecuting office's decision to type up felony charges using a statute ill suited to the task is no adequate substitute, and the majority errs by refusing to say so.

You'd think people would cooperate in a murder prosecution but in the context of the stupid drug war, as in this case, that might mean testifying against family members who you do not wish to see locked up and/or who might kill you for getting them locked up.

The law says, "Lock her up for six months, tops." It's easy to see why that won't be effective. Given how the sentence above ended, it's hard to imagine how draconian our drug war might have to become to be effective. I hope we don't find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least that loonie Joe the Plumber was honest when he said, 

"My gun rights are more important than your children's lives." 

which is the underlying meme of most of this thread. 

guns are still for cowards (cept for utilitarian varmint & small guns) 

And you people are nuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

guns are still for cowards (cept for utilitarian varmint & small guns) 

You say that now and then but won't say whether you think my assault weapon is a "small" or "varmint" gun.

It looks like this and fires the censored ammo:

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

Can you tell from the picture whether those are coward guns or OK guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

You say that now and then but won't say whether you think my assault weapon is a "small" or "varmint" gun.

It looks like this and fires the censored ammo:

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

Can you tell from the picture whether those are coward guns or OK guns?

The bottom one - a real shooter uses open sights.... ;-) 

Marlin 14 shot? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The bottom one - a real shooter uses open sights.... ;-) 

Marlin 14 shot? 

Neither of those is actually mine but one of them looks like it.

Yes, one is the 14 shot version that Marlin foisted on us after New Jersey banned the ones that held more.

Jocal had a pre-ban one but destroyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

The dissenting judge doesn't make any case against compelled testimony.

You'd think people would cooperate in a murder prosecution but in the context of the stupid drug war, as in this case, that might mean testifying against family members who you do not wish to see locked up and/or who might kill you for getting them locked up.

The law says, "Lock her up for six months, tops." It's easy to see why that won't be effective. Given how the sentence above ended, it's hard to imagine how draconian our drug war might have to become to be effective. I hope we don't find out.

 

The judge did what I actually like - he said "You can't just make up laws, the legislature has to do that" - no bueno.  That's a sentiment which I favor.

At the core, I don't like 'compelled" testimony, "compelled" speech, or "compelled" much of anything when the State - an entity from which its extremely difficult to flee - is the compellor.   I don't like State-supported extortion.  Conceptually, that seems to just BEG to be abused by a lazy and/or overzealous prosecutor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 Cal machine guns, bazookas, RPG's, Abrams tanks and 

nuclear weapons are for cowards too . . 

If the purpose of guns is to keep us safe, why aren't we safe? 

Vets For Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

You say that now and then but won't say whether you think my assault weapon is a "small" or "varmint" gun.

It looks like this and fires the censored ammo:

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

Can you tell from the picture whether those are coward guns or OK guns?

 

What a stupid post - those detail issues are up to legislators . . 

I have ZERO interest in the finer points of weaponized death. 

It is just amazing that the gun nuts actually think the stand for freedom . .  

as they turn our country into a shooting gallery. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AJ Oliver said:

What a stupid post - those detail issues are up to legislators . . 

I have ZERO interest in the finer points of weaponized death. 

Yeah, I know, the legislators in my state want to ban and confiscate my property.

It's not such a fine point. It will be banned and confiscated or not.

You seemed to know a varmint gun when you posted above, now you don't know what you were talking about? At least we share that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

 

What a stupid post - those detail issues are up to legislators . . 

I have ZERO interest in the finer points of weaponized death. 

It is just amazing that the gun nuts actually think the stand for freedom . .  

as they turn our country into a shooting gallery. 

 

 

 

Please don't quote Tom. We have seen that picture fourteen thousand fucking times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Yeah, I know, the legislators in my state want to ban and confiscate my property.

Still more idiocy. 

Ever pay property tax?  Gummints take property all the time, in lots of ways. 

You gun nutters all think you have special rights - you do not . .  

Except maybe your sailboat - if you even have one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:
7 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Yeah, I know, the legislators in my state want to ban and confiscate my property.

Still more idiocy. 

Ever pay property tax?  Gummints take property all the time, in lots of ways. 

I pay property tax and that's one good indicator that I own the property and can keep and use it and even leave it to heirs.

That's different from having it confiscated. Gun owners know this, which is why compliance rates with the ongoing confiscation programs are so low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California's ban on all new pistol models: Supreme Court amicus brief
 

Quote

 

Background: The case is Pena v. Horan, with Supreme Court docket number i18-843. My amicus brief is here. The Supreme Court's docket page is here. As the docket indicates, California has received an extension for its reply brief until March 6.

A California statute requires that all new models of semi-automatic handguns stamp the handgun's serial number in two locations on each round of ammunition. It is possible for a handgun's firing pin to stamp the serial number onto the cartridge's primer, which is a disk in the center of the back side of the ammunition. It not possible to stamp a serial number in two locations, as an erudite amicus brief from the Cato Institute explains. Nevertheless, California Attorney General Kamala Harris in May 2013 declared that all conditions for implementation by the statute had been met. Accordingly, all pistol models created since May 2013 are prohibited from commercial sale in California.

...

The Ninth Circuit attempted to blame the California government's pistol freeze on firearms manufacturers, rather than on the government. The panel majority speculated that pistol manufacturers could produce double-microstamped guns but were refusing to do so.

As our brief explains, firearms manufacturers readily comply with California mandates (no matter how foolish) when manufacturers can do so. For example, certain laws in California require that semiautomatic rifles sold in California may not have particular useful features, such as adjustable stocks. (An adjustable stock is ergonomically helpful because people have varying heights and arm lengths, so users can adjust the stock for a good personal fit.) The brief and its appendix describe the hundreds of models of semiautomatic rifles that manufacturers have produced in order to be "California legal."

...

As Judge Bybee's dissent pointed out, "the question of technological feasibility—in the sense of whether a manufacturer can satisfy the testing protocol—is one that can be readily answered in a laboratory." California could have satisfied its step three burden by showing at a firearm exists (even one of the prototypes made by microstamping's inventor) that meets the California standards. California's failure to do so is a tacit admission that compliance is impossible.

 

Sure, we'll let you sell new handguns!

 

(Just not any that have ever been or could be manufactured.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

That's different from having it confiscated. Gun owners know this, which is why compliance rates with the ongoing confiscation programs are so low.

Yeah, that's what the slave owners said around the civil war,  "but   ... But . . .but . . . they are my PROPERTY !!" 

And lots of them demanded compensation for the loss of the slaves, while refusing the compensate the former slaves for centuries of forced labor. 

Makes just as much sense as the gun nutters today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Yeah, that's what the slave owners said around the civil war,  "but   ... But . . .but . . . they are my PROPERTY !!" 

And lots of them demanded compensation for the loss of the slaves, while refusing the compensate the former slaves for centuries of forced labor. 

Makes just as much sense as the gun nutters today. 

What compensation do lawful gun owners owe to who? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2019 at 4:21 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Where was this post when I needed it?

Uh, FLA and CA are different 'sides' ? Home schooled were you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Yeah, that's what the slave owners said around the civil war,  "but   ... But . . .but . . . they are my PROPERTY !!" 

And lots of them demanded compensation for the loss of the slaves, while refusing the compensate the former slaves for centuries of forced labor. 

Makes just as much sense as the gun nutters today. 

Is your boat your PROPERTY?

I guess that makes you just like slave owners.

16 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Uh, FLA and CA are different 'sides' ? Home schooled were you?

I'm not sure why you thought this relevant:

 

On 2/3/2019 at 11:38 AM, Olsonist said:

Whatabout Florida Statute 777.03.

Why did you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose FLA because that's where you live. I could have chosen other states because this is a common law in many states. Now riddle me this. Why did the Volokh choose CA?

And BTW, are there any states where this isn't the law? Well, apparently not Kentucky. Rand will be so disappointed.

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/kentucky/ky-statutes/kentucky_statutes_35-442

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 7:41 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Judge Lamar Baker, dissenting in relevant part, disagreed:

 

59 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I chose FLA because that's where you live. I could have chosen other states because this is a common law in many states. Now riddle me this. Why did the Volokh choose CA?

I doubt Volokh chose FL because it's where I live. That's what a mindless partisan might do, but my location is unrelated to what the dissenting justice said about what the CA court did. You know, that NO other court has done, at least as far as he could find, anywhere?

Meaning, he looked for the whatabout you seek and it doesn't exist. None of which is related to how horrible I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Is your boat your PROPERTY?

I guess that makes you just like slave owners.

Stupid post of the year, in all probability. 

likening bits of fiberglass to human beings . . 

I was illustrating that people sometimes have bizarre notions of property and property rights - like Tom 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Stupid post of the year, in all probability. 

I agree, your post that Tom was replying to was quite stupid.

On 2/7/2019 at 1:39 PM, AJ Oliver said:

Yeah, that's what the slave owners said around the civil war,  "but   ... But . . .but . . . they are my PROPERTY !!" 

And lots of them demanded compensation for the loss of the slaves, while refusing the compensate the former slaves for centuries of forced labor. 

Makes just as much sense as the gun nutters today. 

Maybe you should try rewriting your post into something that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Stupid post of the year, in all probability. 

likening bits of fiberglass to human beings . . 

I was illustrating that people sometimes have bizarre notions of property and property rights - like Tom 

Yep your original post was idiotic. You know, the one where you likened a bit of formed metal with wood/plastic to a human being WRT property rights.

You made the original comparison, you own it.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yep your original post was idiotic. You know, the one where you likened a bit of formed metal with wood/plastic to a human being WRT property rights.

You made the original comparison, you own it.

FKT

Dunno if you know what with your being in Australia and all, but slaves were property until the 15th Amendment was ratified. Indeed the Civil War was fought about slavery.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Also, guns are property. WRT property rights, these are/were the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Dunno if you know, but slaves were property until the 15th Amendment and the Civl War was fought about slavery.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Also, guns are property. WRT property rights, these are/were the same.

Of course I know that. What the idiot OP is trying to equate is property rights over an inanimate object to property rights as they then existed over another human being, saying that if owning a human is wrong then owning an inanimate object is also wrong. I'm not doing the conflation, he is/does. He owns it.

On that logic he must be absolutely frothing at the mouth at livestock producers.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Of course I know that. What the idiot OP is trying to equate is property rights over an inanimate object to property rights as they then existed over another human being, saying that if owning a human is wrong then owning an inanimate object is also wrong. I'm not doing the conflation, he is/does. He owns it.

On that logic he must be absolutely frothing at the mouth at livestock producers.....

FKT

Well, that is what that Joe the Plumber guy was on about:

your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/13/joe-the-plumber-said-your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights-could-he-be-right/

This notion that gun rights, property rights are somehow paramount is, to say the least, kind of nutty. That was the case in 1860 and that's the case today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Well, that is what that Joe the Plumber guy was on about:

your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/13/joe-the-plumber-said-your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights-could-he-be-right/

This notion that gun rights, property rights are somehow paramount is, to say the least, kind of nutty. That was the case in 1860 and that's the case today.

I don't have a problem with restricting firearms.

I have a big problem with arbitrary definitions of what inanimate objects qualify for arbitrary condemnation and confiscation without compensation. If you want to restrict formerly legal items of property, go for it. Just don't get tricky and try to do it without payment. That's what we did here - we passed laws restricting ownership and bought back all the guns from people who no longer had good reason for having them. There was little pushback because the legal owners were treated fairly.

If you and others want to equate 'owning' a human being with a piece of metal & wood then go for it, just don't expect any support from me. Because that line of logic applies even more cogently to ownership of livestock and can be extended indefinitely to anything.

I can see the day coming - I hope - where we will be having a similar discussion WRT AI computing systems and I'll be supporting their entitlement to personhood not being property. That's basically where I draw a line between property and persons - the ability to self-direct and think.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment already has you covered.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

However, I don't know how public use would factor into this, what it would mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I think the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment already has you covered.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

However, I don't know how public use would factor into this, what it would mean.

Self-defense, most likely, that being the core lawful purpose and all.

But grabbers have that fifth amendment thing covered, as discussed elsewhere.

On 12/6/2018 at 4:02 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

3rd Circuit Upholds NJ Ban
 

I haven't read the opinion yet. I'll be interested to see how the fifth amendment claim was handled. The usual approach is to deem the previously-legal property a "public nuisance" an eliminating a public nuisance requires no compensation.

I expect gun owners to note and return that level of respect.

 

On 12/6/2018 at 4:48 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q737OhieRJg3fvv-n9y42G1QtmDmvwiO/view

Sure enough, in a footnote:

Quote

New Jersey’s LCM ban seeks to protect public safety
and therefore it is not a taking at all. A compensable taking
does not occur when the state prohibits the use of property as
an exercise of its police powers rather than for public use.

They do not rely on that "nuisance" justification because, they say, others suffice. Specifically, you can modify your magazine or sell it. Either of which would likely cost more than the magazine did originally. Just involving the magazine in a "boating accident" is way cheaper, especially if you already boat anyway.


Guns are a nuisance, not normal property, which is why the confiscation program that is the topic of this thread offers no compensation when owners surrender their... um... nuisance.

That's why programs like this generate more discussion of boating accidents than actual surrenders of firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yep your original post was idiotic. You know, the one where you likened a bit of formed metal with wood/plastic to a human being WRT property rights.

You made the original comparison, you own it.

FKT

I just expect the occasional person on a forum to say that guns have soul and are like a human but boats are just pieces of material, but I expect it on a gun nut forum. From a gun nut. AJ is unexpectedly humorous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a waste of time explaining things to the gun-ista Reich . . 

they don't get that NO ONE's property may be used to injure or threaten another. 

So we don't care in the slightest that you say that the W88 warhead in your garage is your "property". 

Society has every right to regulate that, as well as your GUNZ !

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

It is a waste of time explaining things to the gun-ista Reich . . 

they don't get that NO ONE's property may be used to injure or threaten another. 

So we don't care in the slightest that you say that the W88 warhead in your garage is your "property". 

Society has every right to regulate that, as well as your GUNZ !

Very few are arguing against that, but it's not what you said WRT property rights when you equated a human being with a chunk of metal.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Very few are arguing against that, but it's not what you said WRT property rights when you equated a human being with a chunk of metal.

FKT

No, I did not do that - i objected to that being done.  

Property rights have been elevated beyond human rights - that is the issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 12:45 PM, AJ Oliver said:
On 2/8/2019 at 7:53 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Is your boat your PROPERTY?

I guess that makes you just like slave owners.

Stupid post of the year, in all probability. 

likening bits of fiberglass to human beings . . 

I was illustrating that people sometimes have bizarre notions of property and property rights - like Tom 

I don't just think boats and guns are property.

I have this weird notion that land can be too. Yes, even in Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California police discover secret shooting range, weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo hidden underneath gangster's home

9604180-6686595-image-a-85_1549746065877

I've only shot indoors a couple of times. It's loud and smoky.

The article mentions a couple of times that there was a 100 round drum. Didn't know those were legal in Cali. The smoke would be too thick to see less than halfway through such a drum would be my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To do business with L.A., city contractors now must disclose ties with the NRA

Quote

 

...

“Let’s take a look at who we’re doing businesses with who is doing business with the NRA,” said Margot Bennett, executive director of Women Against Gun Violence.

The NRA disclosure law contains more than a dozen exemptions, including contracts involving the city’s pension funds and other investment agreements.

Still, attorneys for the NRA said they would file a lawsuit if the ordinance passed, according to a Feb. 4 letter sent to the city. In the letter, the NRA said the law violates the 1st Amendment and is “an unconstitutional effort to restrict and chill an individual’s right to associate and express their political beliefs.”

NRA attorney Chuck Michel told The Times he was unaware of any other city that had enacted such a policy.

“Politicians are free to disagree with the NRA’s pro-freedom, firearm safety, and self-reliance message, but they aren’t free to censor it — as this would do when NRA supporters drop their NRA memberships for fear of losing their livelihood from being on this blacklist,” Michel said. “This is modern day McCarthyism, and my clients are confident no judge will let it stand.”

Before Tuesday’s vote, O’Farrell said that City Atty. Mike Feuer’s office advised that the city is “on firm legal ground.”

Groups opposing the new ordinance include the Studio City Neighborhood Council, which sent a statement to the City Council saying that while “stakeholders are concerned about gun violence,” singling out an organization “smacks of politics, makes little sense and could result in unwanted legal costs.”

 

Ties to other groups could become controversial too.

It has happened before to one of our more interesting corporations. NAACP v Alabama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

District Court permanently enjoins California magazine confiscation law

Quote

Previously, Judge Benitez had issued a preliminary injunction against the confiscation law, and the preliminary injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit, as discussed in this post. Today's decision follows cross-motions for summary judgment, and makes the injunction permanent. The next step in Duncan v. Becerra will be an appeal to the Ninth Circuit by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

...Under heightened scrutiny, laws restricting constitutional rights must be "tailored"--in strict scrutiny, "narrow tailoring"; in intermediate scrutiny, "a reasonable fit." But the confiscation statute "is not tailored at all. It fits like a burlap bag. It is a single-dimensional, prophylactic, blanket thrown across the population of the state."

So the people whose property has become illegal can continue to safely keep it for now.

Following the pattern out there, I expect a 9th Circuit panel to overturn the confiscation program and then the en banc 9th will restore it and then we'll see whether the Supreme Court takes the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah! Contumacious Californicators Voted With Their Wallets
 

Quote

 

...

The ruling that suspended the state law was put into place last week by a federal judge, who in turn granted a stay to California officials while the case continues on appeal. The new order, which becomes effective Friday at 5 p.m., has an allowance for the potentially thousands of new magazines that have been sold in the past week.

In short, on Friday evening California can restart their enforcement of state law prohibiting what are classified as “large capacity magazines,” which includes a ban on making, importing, giving, lending or buying such devices, while the case is in the courts. Likewise, people and businesses who have made, imported, sold, or bought such magazines in the recent window between March 29 and 5 p.m. on April 5, will be able to keep them while the case is still underway.

...

In the past week, major gun manufacturers and magazine makers have made efforts to ship the devices to the West Coast state, often announcing special deals and sales. On Thursday, Ruger President and CEO Chris Killoy said the company had shipped all their current inventory of such mags to California distributors “in order to satisfy this demand.” Brownells posted a video of boxes of 30-round PMAGs heading down a conveyor with a tag “the Freedom train is coming.”

On the ground in California, local stores have posted images of “batches of Freedom” in the form of pallets of magazines arriving from out of state and many adjusted their hours to accommodate long lines with reports of “hundreds of people” queuing up to buy what in many cases are standard capacity magazines that have been banned from non-law enforcement sales for two decades.

 

Pallets of scary magazines? The streets will soon be running with blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussion of that order among gun nuts suggests the streets may be running with fake receipts along with the usual reports of fake boating accidents.

The people who bought scary magazines during the window of opportunity are specifically protected by the temporary order. If that order becomes permanent in the end, enforcement of the magazine ban will involve whether it was bought during that time period.

People charged with possessing a scary magazine might object that they bought it legally during that critical week (but the receipt had a boating accident).

The State might counter with, "You possess a banned item. Prove you got it legally."

It has never occurred to me to wonder before, but I wonder where you get that crappy paper that is used for store receipts and how you feed it to your printer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

It has never occurred to me to wonder before, but I wonder where you get that crappy paper that is used for store receipts and how you feed it to your printer?

Scan one in, photoshop it, take a digital photo of the result and save that. The thermal paper ones fade out anyway.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Scan one in, photoshop it, take a digital photo of the result and save that. The thermal paper ones fade out anyway.

FKT

Then the problem would be how to create a matching record in a gun shop.

This must be why "boating accidents" are the more popular way to explain what happened to banned property. No need to break into a gun store and fake their records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass Shooting In California

 

Quote

 

District

Congressional District: 43
State Senate District: 30
State House District: 64

Officials described the recent surge as possibly a back-and-forth between rival gangs.

At a meeting of the Watts Gang Task Force on Monday, Capt. Louis Paglialonga of the LAPD’s Southeast Division described a recent surge in shootings in Watts that may be a back-and-forth between rival gangs.

 

Gee, the stupid drug war again and California's gun bans and confiscation programs are as effective as drug prohibition in stopping it.

But TnP of DOING SOMETHING anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one week, high-capacity ammunition magazines were legal in California. Hundreds of thousands may have been sold
 

Quote

 

...

While California has long banned the retail sales of the magazines, possession of them has remained legal. Thanks to the judge’s ruling, Michel said, “hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners purchased probably more than a million of these self-defense tools that had been unavailable for almost 20 years.”

Supporters of California’s gun laws, though, are cringing at what they called the partial undoing of two decades of work over seven days.

They have long sought to purge the state of high-capacity magazines, arguing that would-be mass shooters prefer them for the same reason they are popular among enthusiasts: They allow more bullets to be fired more quickly without reloading.

“I think about the numerous shootings that are often stopped when someone jumps in when the shooter is reloading,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “For people shot by the second magazine, it really matters.”

There are no official figures on how many of the high-capacity magazines sold after the judge’s decision. But the buying spree exposed the tension that surrounds California’s stricter gun regulations. It also underscored the fervor of gun-rights proponents, who tend to pay much closer attention to the legal fight over the issue than their opponents.

California’s ban took effect in 2000, making it illegal to buy or sell magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Another law, Proposition 63 — sponsored by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and approved by the voters in 2016 — would require anyone who owns the magazines to get rid of them.

...

 

Possession had remained legal, right up until it became a crime. Then it wasn't legal any more because things that are crimes are not legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

For one week, high-capacity ammunition magazines were legal in California. Hundreds of thousands may have been sold
 

Possession had remained legal, right up until it became a crime. Then it wasn't legal any more because things that are crimes are not legal.

This is a good example of a Pyrrhic victory, I suspect that even more restrictive laws are coming down the pipeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sunshine State has 12.6 gun suicides per 100,000. The Golden State only has 4. Florida is God's waiting room, sure, I get that. But what's the hurry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

This is a good example of a Pyrrhic victory, I suspect that even more restrictive laws are coming down the pipeline.

Is there a basis for your suspicion?

Many suspect that those who $peak to our politicians also write our laws behind the scenes, which is only sometimes bad.

On 4/7/2018 at 9:08 PM, badlatitude said:

There is nothing I can do now but support a full Second Amendment extermination, which I will do with huge endowments. Money talks.


So have you got any insider info to share?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Is there a basis for your suspicion?

Many suspect that those who $peak to our politicians also write our laws behind the scenes, which is only sometimes bad.


So have you got any insider info to share?

Only that you will be surprised and disappointed.