Jump to content
 
Sign in to follow this  
kuhla

Gun Laws

Recommended Posts

If a law is impossible to comply with does that mean enforcement is purely at the discretion of the court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judicial/Legal discretion is not new.  I've seen it work for things I personally approve of and I've also seen it cut the other direction like this.  Some examples off the top of my head:

  • Legalized/Medical Marijuana - This is the state/local authorities usurping the federal government and using discretion to not charge people with crimes.  Of course the DEA can (and does) occasionally decide to ruin people's day.
  • Gay Marriage Approval/Ban - Initially the states started approving it, then DOMA happened and finally was overturned by SCOTUS.  You also have weird stuff like California's Prop 8 which banned gay marriage but was overturned by the California Supreme Court.
  • Jim Crow Laws - While the laws on the books that banned or limited freedoms to non-whites were "legal" - they were also not always followed universally. 
  • Criminal/Civil Sentencing - Technically this is the mother lode.  Judges have broad power to determine the harshness and duration of the penalty, juries also are given this power to a lesser degree. 

If I'm being very kind towards the judges' ruling - they're suggesting that laws can be invalidated but not solely on the basis that complying with the law is impossible.  Of course this suggests that previous arguments on grounds of the 2nd amendment or other legal footing would carry proper legal standing, and I've yet to see that be the case. 

My issues with this particular argument is that it sets incredibly poor precedent.  This isn't something like raising CAFE standards or reducing allowed emissions from automobiles this is asking for something that an unbiased entity would find impossible with current technology.  This not only opens the door to additional gun legislation that further restricts or even outright bans firearms but they can apply this case to other areas as well.  I also expect that if you flipped this case around and targeted a more progressive/liberal issue, the law would have been struck down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Defense Distributed won their court case, well technically speaking the government settled instead of continuing their prosecution.  That means that currently Defense Distributed has a unique dispensation from the government to host and provide files related to the production of firearms and firearm components online. 
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/doj-saf-reach-settlement-in-defense-distributed-lawsuit-300678872.html

Now the part that makes me incredibly interested in this case is this particular piece of language. 

Quote

Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. [...] Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military.

I'm curious if this might be used as an inroads into stopping state restrictions and future assault weapon bans, in particular with relation to US vs Miller. 

I don't want to try and read too far into future SCOTUS actions, but I do think we'll see some 2nd amendment rulings coming down from SCOTUS in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Read through this article about magazine capacity restrictions for firearms.  It has some interesting points, especially mentioning that even among the very small sample size of mass shootings, there is evidence that extended magazines are not an effective means of reducing gun violence. 

Note that this article is from the CATO institute which is libertarian (right leaning) think tank funded by the Koch brothers.  Please understand that this article clearly has a pro-gun bias. 

https://www.cato.org/publications/legal-policy-bulletin/losing-count-empty-case-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions#full

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, rejecting a claim by Hawaii officials that the right only applies to guns kept at home.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-court/u-s-appeals-court-constitution-gives-right-to-carry-gun-in-public-idUSKBN1KE28C

Some background.  The 2nd amendment allows for the right to keep and bear arms.  So of course some states allow concealed carry, or open carry.  There was recently an issue of states not being able to deny both, they had to allow either concealed or open carry otherwise, the whole part about bearing arms doesn't work.  Hawaii (and California) have basically tried to ban both concealed and open carry, California technically is a "may issue" depending on the county sheriff. 

One it's face this ruling is great because it provides legal precedent that people are allowed to open carry firearms when concealed carry is not possible.  I have a strong feeling that most politicians would rather have concealed carry than open carry (I personally would as well) and we might see a challenge stemming from this ruling changing the states "may issue" to "shall issue."  But it's a bit early to tell. 

This part is where I put on my tinfoil hat. 

The 9th circuit has been decidedly anti-gun for a long time, so why in the hell would they rule in favor of gun rights? Well, there's a strong likelihood that they're doing this because of Supreme Court Justice Kennedy's retirement announcement.  They fear, that if they ruled against gun rights that this case would get on the supreme court's calendar and would be overturned federally.  This is not the first time that attorneys and judges have played games like this; I seem to recall a district attorney declining to take a gun rights case to federal court because there would be a chance it would be overturned by SCOTUS. 
So what does all this mean... We might see some interesting/disgusting levels of political games going on in the courts - especially the 9th circuit.  They may decide to drag their feet in ruling on any cases and possibly even rule in favor of gun rights in the short term so they don't send anything up to SCOTUS and have it get overturned nationally.  /tinfoil hat
I could also be completely full of shit and projecting my personal views about the 9th circuit's various rulings on the 2nd amendment, rather than seeing these judges interpreting the law as best they can. 

All I know is that if Kavanaugh does get put on SCOTUS (highly likely) we might see additional pro-2nd amendment rulings in the future, and possibly even from lower federal courts. 

SIDENOTE: spoilered for other political bullshit

Spoiler

I was briefly listening to NPR and they mentioned the history of Roe v Wade.  They made mention that California signed a very liberal abortion rights bill into law in 1967, signed by... Ronald Reagan.  That same year, the black panthers stood on the California statehouse steps armed with rifles/pistols/shotguns and scared many of the politicians at the time.  Which prompted Reagan to sign the Mulford Act, which were/are some of the most strict gun laws in the entire nation.  I don't entirely understand how the Republican party still holds up Reagan as a patron saint of conservative causes when you look at both of those pieces of legislation he signed into effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 9:00 AM, Malaphax said:

So Defense Distributed won their court case.....

source - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns/u-s-states-to-sue-trump-administration-over-3-d-printed-guns-idUSKBN1KK269

Quote

(Reuters) - Several U.S. states on Monday said they would jointly sue the Trump administration for allowing the public to download blueprints for 3-D printable guns in a last-ditch effort to block the designs from becoming available on Wednesday.

....

“Our Congress has carefully crafted laws to protect us and, in one moment, without any consultation with experts, the administration undoes it,” Washington state’s Ferguson said.
....

Not sure where this is going

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually hilarious that they're trying this because there's a strong precedent that this case is now a 1st amendment issue and every major court in the land has some of the highest requirements to limit freedom of speech.  Of course I'm also expecting major 1st amendment groups like the ACLU to be either very quiet about this case or just flat out say they disagree with them on the 2nd amendment principle (their current position). 

I hear that Defcad is currently blocking IPs from the states that have filed an injunction so they can at least appear to be compliant, but of course we all know how easy an IP block can be circumvented. 

I don't generally give credit to some of the gun subreddits but someone posted this and I'm inclined to agree with them:
"I have made a lot of jokes in here calling NJ the Democratic People's Republic of New Jersey but I never thought they would go so far as to take a page from China's Playbook on suppressing the speech of those that the current regime does not approve of."

I'm going to sit back and watch the states get slapped by some federal court or maybe even SCOTUS, I have a very hard time believing they have a legal leg to stand on with this particular issue.  They would have a much better time if they tried to make self made weapons illegal, but even that carries it's own risk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

source - http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/399551-more-than-450-people-in-florida-ordered-to-surrender-guns 

Quote

 

More than 450 people in Florida have been ordered to surrender their guns since March under a law passed after the Parkland school shooting, according to a local ABC affiliate.

The Risk Protection Act, a "red flag" law that Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) signed shortly after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting in February, allows the state to take away guns from their owners if a judge finds they are a threat to themselves or others.
....

 

Not exactly the law itself but the precedent is worrying. It just takes a loose interpretation and a judge to get everything taken away.


source - http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.401.html

Quote

 

....

(c) In determining whether grounds for a risk protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
....
13. Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms or ammunition by the respondent.
....

 

There is already one item that seems very odd.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the intention of these laws is bad, but the execution is a dumpster fire.  I understand that someone who is/was committed involuntarily to a mental institution should have their firearms taken away, I also understand that someone who is convicted of a felony should lose their firearms as well.  But once we start getting into the nitty gritty of "making threats" or "recent firearm/ammo purchases" it gets really ugly really fast.  What happens when someone goes through a messy divorce/breakup and a spouse reports you for threats, do they just take their word and start confiscating firearms?  I can imagine a scenario of an individual doing that and then once the person is disarmed attacking them.  It also gets messy because the people who can report you are rather broad, I believe it covers medical personnel (a nurse/doctor that doesn't like guns?), family (3rd cousin twice removed still count?) and "friends" (facebook friends too?). 

I sympathize with victims of domestic abuse wanting their abuser disarmed, but there needs to be strong standards in place to determine what constitutes cause to confiscate weapons (or to force individuals to surrender them).  There also needs to be mechanisms in place to return the firearms to people found innocent, as well as ways of handling sales of the firearms in the event the abuser is found guilty. 

I also believe that many of these confiscation laws and mandatory reporting create a negative feedback loop, causing people who own firearms that may have mental health issues to avoid seeking treatment for fear of losing their guns rights permanently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned earlier in this thread that California's Supreme Court has ruled that microstamping is legal because "The California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible." Well now we get a ruling from the 9th circuit effectively saying the same thing.  

Quote

In the Unsafe Handgun Act decision, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for a 2-1 majority that requiring new handguns to contain “modern technology” did not impose a substantial burden on gun buyers, and reasonably related to California’s interests in protecting public safety and tracing bullets at crime scenes.

Setting aside that the California Supreme court has admitted that the law is impossible to comply with, the 9th circuit has chosen that this "modern technology" which doesn't currently exist, is not a substantial burden because 'think of the children.'

As much as I crap on the 9th circuit for being rather biased on 2nd amendment issues, one judge did write a dissent and was rather reasonable including:

Quote

Circuit Judge Jay Bybee dissented on the microstamping provision, saying in a 51-page opinion the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims should be taken “seriously.”  He said California’s “restrictive testing protocol” had since 2013 barred commercial sales of new handguns, allowing sales only of guns grandfathered from microstamping, and it was premature to say microstamping reasonably fit with California’s interest in solving handgun crimes.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-guns/u-s-appeals-court-rejects-challenges-to-california-gun-laws-idUSKBN1KO1XU

There seem to be two options for this case (Pena vs California), either this gets an en banc ruling from the 9th circuit or it goes to SCOTUS.  Seeing as Kennedy is leaving and there's a strong likelihood Kavanaugh will be approved, I actually think this might be a case that makes it to SCOTUS and completely blows up California's bullshit roster - maybe even some other nonsense.  Of course because courts are slow, the earliest we would see this happen would be middle of next year and honestly I expect they might push it even further than that.  I am being rather optimistic towards the possibility of this case being put on the SCOTUS docket because we haven't seen any 2nd amendment rulings in quite some time and states are really messing with previous rulings like Heller

Full ruling (pdf warning): http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/03/15-15449.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In today's wonderful news, 3d printer companies are now actively attempting to neuter their products because someone might use them to 3d print things that the companies don't like (ie: guns and gun parts). 

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/14/638629404/some-3d-printing-companies-are-taking-action-against-gun-blueprints

This particular quote stood out to me:

Quote

And if a 3D-printed gun got in the wrong hands and someone used it to carry out violence, there could be an avalanche of lawsuits brought against the makers of 3D printing machines. That's according to Tom Baker. He's a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in liability and insurance issues.

Yea that law professor is completely and utterly full of shit. 
To start with, I can't sue Ford if someone uses a fiesta to run over my grandmother.  The liability is clearly on the person using the device.  If his argument is that the 3d printer company is liable because their device theoretically COULD be used to manufacture something harmful, then I would argue we should also be allowed to sue Home Depot since I can roam the aisles there and come up with enough parts to create firearms or other dangerous items. 
Think of the steps required for someone to theoretically 3d print a firearm right now.  They need to purchase a 3d printer, some software, download the files, purchase the plastic material and then even if they get that far, they still need to assemble the item which currently includes certain non-plastic parts (firing pin, etc).  But apparently that means the 3d printer company is totally liable...
Maybe this lawyer goes to the same law school as the attorney representing families of sandy hook trying to sue bushmaster because that's the brand of gun used in that incident?

I hate the overly litigious American legal system. 

EDIT: Here's one bill trying to make it's way through congress, I expect this to be killed fairly quick. 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3304/text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Official document: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4784902/3D-Guns-Seattle-20180827.pdf

Quote

....

First, it is not clear how available the nine files are: the possibility that cybernaut with a BitTorrent protocol will be able to find a file in the dark or remote recesses of the internet does not make the posting to Defense Distributed’s site harmless.

....

 

Guys. I'm a cybernaut. Don't tell the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone else pointed out this gem related to the same document linked in my last post.

source - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns/u-s-judge-extends-ban-of-online-3-d-printed-gun-blueprints-idUSKCN1LC1UF?utm_source=reddit.com

Quote

The judge also said Defense Distributed’s First Amendment concerns were “dwarfed” by the states’ safety considerations.

The exact quote:

Official document: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4784902/3D-Guns-Seattle-20180827.pdf
 

Quote

The Court finds that the irreparable burdens on the private defendants’ First Amendment rights are dwarfed by the irreparable harms the States are likely to suffer if the existing restrictions are withdrawn and that, overall, the public interest strongly supports maintaining the status quo through the pendency of this litigation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article - https://www.wired.com/story/3-d-printed-gun-blueprints-return-laws-injunction/amp

There is a lot in the article but I'm just trying to grab a couple of parts...

Quote

Attorneys general from 20 states celebrated on Monday when a district court judge in Seattle extended an injunction against the sharing of 3-D printed gun blueprints online. But their victory lap was short-lived. On Tuesday afternoon, Cody Wilson, founder of the open-source gun-printing advocacy group Defense Distributed, announced he would begin selling the blueprints directly to people who want them.
....

On Monday, US District Judge Robert Lasnik in Seattle found both aspects of that argument compelling enough to extend an injunction against the publication of the blueprints online. "The instability and inaccuracy of 3-D printed firearms pose threats to the citizens of the plaintiff States,” Lasnik wrote.
....

But while that may have been the spirit of the lawsuit, and the injunction, nothing in the case precludes the sale of those same prints to US citizens in the United States. And it never did.

“The files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States,” Lasnik wrote in the decision Monday.

In fact, because the case against the blueprints has always hinged on export law, Wilson could have sold them legally within the United States all along.
....

To avoid any accusation that he’s uploading them to the internet, Wilson will the put the prints on flash drives and mail them to customers. He also requires customers to click a box certifying that they are US citizens, but appears to take no further action to verify their citizenship.
....

Wilson is not selling the blueprints in Washington, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts or any of the 20 states whose AG’s brought the case against him. If you try to order them on his website and put an address in any of those states, you’re shown the following message: “451: Oops. You’re behind the blue wall. Your masters say you can’t be trusted with this information. Sorry, little lamb.”

Each of these states has its own gun laws, which Wilson expects will explicitly ban the sale of blueprints within their borders, if they don't already.

So many ups and downs. It's getting hard to keep track what the current status is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm expecting this case will eventually make its way to SCOTUS, it has too many provisions that touch too many areas to be handled individually by a state or even circuit court.  The founder of Defcad has always aimed to fight a decisive court battle and allow for the online transmission of these blueprints. 

I think more interestingly is that his company appears to be doing reasonably well selling their ghost gunner 3d milling machines that turn 80% AR lowers and glock frames into fully functional items.  I imagine that eventually more states will get wise to the idea of 80% lowers and ban them, or require registration (California requires registration).  I also think eventually these types of consumer milling machines will be capable of turning raw materials into a firearm lower and that's when the real fun begins, because I'm not sure you can totally regulate a cnc milling machine on the principal that it could be used to make something dangerous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Malaphax said:

......I'm not sure you can totally regulate a cnc milling machine on the principal that it could be used to make something dangerous. 

Isn't this THE EXACT issue we are talking about right now with 3D printers? Government entities wanting to regulate what you should be allowed to do with a 3D printer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Judge orders Cody Wilson’s arrest, but he skipped his return flight from Taiwan
New court docs detail child sexual assault allegations against the digital firearms activist.

source - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/judge-orders-cody-wilsons-arrest-demands-pictures-of-his-upper-legs/

We had a serious and interesting issue being discussed and now this happens and it's just going to hang over the topic like a cloud. I would even go so far as to say this nails shut this topic in the court of public opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to drop this here:

California's background checks for firearm purchases and ban on possession for those convicted of violent misdemeanors has had no effect on firearm homicide or suicide over the past 10 years.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279718306161

I'm generally willing to let various groups collect and analyze statistics relating to firearm injuries/fatalities - I suspect if we did that we'd see very little correlation between firearm legislation and reduction in firearm suicide/homicide rates. 
The only concern I have would be agencies allowing political bias affect how the interpret results, or worse yet, taking data and mangling it until it fits a narrative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Under a new federal rule announced Tuesday by the Justice Department, bump stocks will be redefined as "machine guns" and therefore outlawed under existing law.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/677788059/justice-department-bans-bump-stocks-devices-used-in-deadly-las-vegas-shooting

On a technical level, this makes very little sense.  Although we have had other items like shoelaces banned for being machine guns as well. 
This gets a little bit uglier because of two things.  There is no grandfather clause, so all of these items must be either destroyed or surrendered to the ATF during these next 90 days.  The government is ordering the uncompensated confiscation/destruction of private property.  Just for a mental exercise replace bumpstock with a different item and see if this ruling sounds reasonable. 

Also this law says nothing about binary triggers, or trigger cranks.  I expect binary triggers will be the next item that shows up in legislation because "think of the children" or some other tragedy that they'll invariably be tied to. 

 

More good news for the residents of California.  We're finally getting details about the ammunition regulations that were passed a few years back. 
tl;dr - $1 mini-background check for ammo purchases (non-refundable) if that doesn't work it costs $19 for a full fledged background check. 

PDF WARNING: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/regs/ammo-text-of-regs-121418.pdf?

Just as a note this is the information you must now provide the state of California when you purchase ammunition:

Quote

The ammunition vendor shall collect the purchaser’s or transferee’s name, date of birth, current address and driver license or other government identification number in the manner described in Penal Code section 28180, and telephone number, and enter this information into the DES website.

That information will of course sit in a state database forever.  And while I would never suggest that the state of California (or Hawaii) would even use information in these databases to cross check other information, like medical marijuana cards for example, there is the possibility that this may change at some point in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This fits into this thread on multiple levels.  They released after action reports and recommendations following the shooting in Parkland Florida at Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool.  One of the key recommendations was a substantial increase in the guardian program - aka allowing teachers with proper training to carry concealed firearms on them at school. 

I also completely missed this when NPR covered it but they interviewed one of the members that made these recommendations, in fact she previously was very opposed to teachers being armed, but after reviewing the facts completely changed her mind and basically came to the conclusion that this would be one of the best ways to keep children safe. 
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/14/676901103/florida-state-senator-discusses-new-report-on-mass-shooting-response-prevention

Here's the full 458 page PDF: http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/MSDHS/CommissionReport.pdf

I'm just going to steal from a reddit comment covering the more interesting segments:

Quote

The Broward County Public School System initiated one threat assessment process involving Cruz on September 28, 2016. The initial threat assessment of Cruz was a Level 1 assessment.
The 2016 threat assessment of Cruz was mishandled by Assistant Principal Jeff Morford. Morford was not familiar with the threat assessment process and he was incompetent in leading the TAT. Further, Morford’s statement that he does not recall the Cruz threat assessment in 2016 and cannot answer detailed questions about what occurred is not credible.

Former Deputy Scot Peterson was derelict in his duty on February 14, 2018, failed to act consistently with his training and fled to a position of personal safety while Cruz shot and killed MSDHS students and staff. Peterson was in a position to engage Cruz and mitigate further harm to others, and he willfully decided not to do so

School districts and charter schools should permit the most expansive use of the Guardian Program under existing law to allow personnel—who volunteer, are properly selected, thoroughly screened and extensively trained—to carry concealed firearms on campuses for self-protection and the protection of other staff and students.
School districts and charter schools should not restrict the existing Guardian Program only to dedicated guardians, and all districts should expand the guardian eligibility to other school employees now permitted to be guardians.
Further, the Florida legislature should expand the Guardian Program to allow teachers who volunteer—in addition to those now authorized—who are properly selected, thoroughly screened and extensively trained to carry concealed firearms on campuses for self protection, and the protection of other staff and students in response to an active assailant incident.

I'm curious if this is going to be downplayed dramatically by the new house of representatives leadership.  I also wonder how this will square the recent legislative efforts in Florida aimed at passing more restrictive gun legislation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a short video of an individual who is refusing to comply with local laws regarding the registration of his firearms. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG2c7vbJXxg&feature=youtu.be

Just as a note, one concern some people have about city or local regulations regarding firearms is that simply transporting your firearms across state lines (or through different cities/counties) could be illegal and get your arrested for felony weapons charges.  There's a case currently pending petition at the Supreme court regarding the transportation of firearms - NYC currently bans individuals from taking their firearms outside of city limits or anyone transporting firearms through NYC, regardless of if they're unloaded or in a locked container. 

I would much rather see proper federal laws than a patchwork of state (or worse yet city/county) laws that you need to be aware of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first case regarding the 2nd amendment to be accepted by the supreme court in 10 years.  Many people believe that the current conservative majority on the court could begin to set precedent regarding the second amendment and limiting some of the restrictions various states have been passing recently. 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

As a note.  I'm not a legal scholar but this particular case is dealing with some seriously bullshit laws.  New York City is basically saying "you can own a gun, but you can't move it into or out of NYC" which is what I would consider a very draconian policy. 
I suspect this will be overturned rather handily, and maybe even with more than a simple 5-4 majority.  My other suspicion is that some justices will work hard to limit the scope of this ruling rather than outright oppose it. 

There are 3 other major cases pending certiorari (waiting on the supreme court to take the case or not) some of which will most likely appear before SCOTUS. 

Pena v Lindley - 18-843

  • Last Update - Cert petition filed, response due March 6th.

  • Case Summary: Case challenges the California handgun roster

Mance v Whitaker - 18-663

  • Last update - Cert petition filed, response due Feb 21st

  • Case Summary: Case challenging federal ban on interstate handgun sales.

Rogers v Grewal - 18-824

  • Last Update - Cert petition filed, response due Feb 20th

  • Case Summary: Challenge to NJ's May issue regime.

Sidenote: If you want to read some grade A stupidity from the current Governor of California here's his position on gun control:
tl;dr - He plans on passing any piece of gun control that comes across his desk, and he has funded the Cal DOJ to take a more active approach at seizing firearms from restricted individuals.  Newsom wants to be President and may use his aggressive gun control platform as credentials if he runs in the democratic primary. 
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-guns-20190125-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated in my previous post, the current California Governor is increasing the California DOJ budget so they can confiscate more firearms. 
I've heard on various forums (calguns / reddit) that multiple people who have registered their firearms (in order to comply with the most recent set of laws that went into effect on 7/1/18) have had CalDOJ officers show up at their residence and seize their firearms. 

This post is from one guy that just had both of his AR pistols seized - the Cal DOJ officer states that all AR pistols are illegal in California, there is no exception.  He also says all 80% builds must be featureless - otherwise they charge you with a felony for possessing an assault weapon. 

Unfortunately for California this increased enforcement is bound to have the opposite effect.  People who see this type of enforcement on the internet are going to be less likely to register when the laws change again (which I'm sure it will) and they might also be less likely to follow some of the more onerous laws that are currently being passed - why bother jumping through all the right hoops if CalDOJ is just going to take it anyways?.  Remember these aren't criminals, these are law abiding citizens that are being targeted for enforcement.  It would be one thing if CalDOJ threw the book at a criminal who used an illegally configured firearm but it's quite another thing to send officers to go and confiscate firearms from people attempting to comply with the law. 
I suspect we'll end up hearing about cases like these in the future - even if they get rejected all the way to the 9th circuit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've previously had 80% lowers - which refers to a piece of metal/plastic lower receiver of a firearm that was 80% completed.  By law these 80% lowers are not considered firearms, but with a special cnc machine or simple hand tools, you could of course turn them into a completed lower (which is legally a firearm) and then attach whatever you wanted to it and would be in possession of a seemingly untraceable firearm - or at least not registered or logged with any firearms dealers. 

We've also had people like defense distributed publish the CAD files for fully 3d printed firearms, but most of them were utter garbage that were at best usable for 1 shot and weren't practical.  Keep in mind in most states that you can legally build your own firearms (within certain limits) and that zip guns have existed for a very long time (since ww2). 

Finally we have someone who's successfully combined both ideas, and is about to release the 3d printing files for a Glock Gen 3 9mm lower.  If you combine this with other firearms parts you have yourself a fully functional glock, that is not registered. 

I'm sure some legislators will eventually catch up to this in about 6months or a year and try and ban stuff like this, but as anyone on the internet knows, banning data is very hard.  Not to mention this could again result in a court case that ties the 2nd amendment to the 1st amendment, and could end up being one of the first times in modern history where gun rights are expanded. 

Here's a link to the reddit thread - https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/b0skli/3dprintable_diy_capable_untraceable_and/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...