Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 4/25/2017 1:24:08 PM EDT
This is worthy of National news, certainly it is worthy of posting on the State Hometown Forum.

Lawsuit Filed Against California's Assault Weapons Control Act

The Complaint

"Desiring to acquire, possess, use, and/or transfer these constitutionally
protected firearms for lawful purposes including self-defense, but justifiably fearing
prosecution if they do, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court: (1) declare that
California Penal Code sections 30510(a), 30515(a)(1)(A-C), 30515(a)(1)(E-F),
30515(a)(3), 30520, 30600, 30605, 30925, and 30945, along with California Code of
Regulations, title 11, section 5499 (“11 C.C.R. 5499”), infringe Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights
; and (2) permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing each of
those sections to the extent they prevent law-abiding Californians, like Plaintiffs,
from acquiring, possessing, using or transferring constitutionally protected arms."
Link Posted: 4/25/2017 1:52:25 PM EDT
[#1]
Yes good news.
Link Posted: 4/25/2017 4:33:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Great!  A step in the right direction.
Link Posted: 4/25/2017 4:43:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Link Posted: 4/25/2017 8:41:21 PM EDT
[#4]
It's time.  What is going on in this State is nothing short of unconstitutional.

If I had my way, I'd ask the presiding judge for an immediate injunction against the enforcement of these laws because of the timing.  The issue is constitutionality.  The laws' near-term implementation will render moot a lot of the protections eventually affirmed,  By then, all the magazines will have been destroyed, rifles will have been modified or moved out of State,... etc.  

The timing will cause a LOT of punitive damage to gun owners ($1B is my guess).  If it is eventually decided in our favor, it will cost another $1B to return to where we were.  That is wrong in and of itself.  It's like being released from prison after serving the sentence for something you never did.  It's like the family being notified the verdict was overturned after the accused has been executed.  It may happen all the time in the legal system but here we have fore-knowledge, we know ahead of time.

Honestly, these laws are the last straw, in a long chain of straws, for me.  If they are not overturned, I'll it will clinch the decision to leave California and I'll be taking my assets with me.
Link Posted: 4/26/2017 11:12:40 AM EDT
[#5]
Link Posted: 4/26/2017 8:28:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Not holding my breath, all of a sudden the NRA wants to help us?

And when CA thumbs it's nose at the federal government again, who's gonna make them comply? Trump? Yeah, good luck with that.

You might want to start packing now, that way you're ready to go.
View Quote
While I'm not packing I'm in this camp.
Link Posted: 4/26/2017 11:22:22 PM EDT
[#7]
Actually, with the handwriting that's already on the wall, we are looking for a place to which we can retire.  We're not packed (yet) but we are getting ready to go.  We're already mentally set to leave.  We feel like we are being pushed out.
Link Posted: 4/27/2017 9:39:26 AM EDT
[#8]
Link Posted: 4/27/2017 11:08:17 AM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Don't get me wrong, I feel your pain and plan on retiring to another state. But for the time being I'm stuck here like most others.

I just can't stand it when these asshats show up to the party after people are already leaving. I can only imagine how many people and businesses have left CA because of their left wing BS.
View Quote
Millions, maybe ten million.

I have a report on that exact issue.  It's stored on my computer,... somewhere.
Link Posted: 4/27/2017 3:01:25 PM EDT
[#10]
Link Posted: 4/27/2017 3:51:52 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
To add to that, it's mostly the good people that are leaving and we're left with all the shit that's just here for the handouts! And more and more come here for that reason. Thank you democrats and liberals for screwing up CA.
View Quote
Honestly, the study's report shows exactly that - middle class and wealthy whites are leaving in droves (milllions) and are being replaced by the poor (people who arrive and are immediately on the welfare roles).  

The other disturbing fact is that businesses (small and large) are leaving in droves, too.  Automotive and aerospace are slowly, quietly relocating elsewhere.

I've been through this before, in the north-east.  Even as a kid, I noticed my neighbors were selling their houses and relocating out of State - some for employment; others to retire; their kids choose an out-of-State college; all are going elsewhere.

It became known as "white flight".  It devastated the inner cities (New York, Detroit, ...) and to this day they have not recovered.

If the trend continues too long, California will soon be the Detroit of the west.
Link Posted: 4/27/2017 3:56:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Link Posted: 4/27/2017 5:11:05 PM EDT
[#13]
I'm torn honestly. I love California but I need a bit more space, and it gets too same hot here. A nice place out of state would be nice, but it's not going to be anytime soon.
Link Posted: 4/28/2017 5:25:01 AM EDT
[#14]
You honestly don't think the 9th circuit is going to overturn a single law do you?  And you're not challenging mag limits?  Why?  They fall under Heller too.  Best we can hope for is they grant cert to Kolbe.
Link Posted: 4/28/2017 8:16:46 AM EDT
[#15]
good.
Link Posted: 4/28/2017 11:20:02 AM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
You honestly don't think the 9th circuit is going to overturn a single law do you?  And you're not challenging mag limits?  Why?  They fall under Heller too.  Best we can hope for is they grant cert to Kolbe.
View Quote
They claim this is the first to come into the system if several filed. I can only imagine that mag limits, safe handguns, etc are the other suits. Further speculation would be that each suit was structured independently so that if the courts didn't agree on one facet, the entire campaign wouldn't collapse.

Furthermore, I think their hope is for the Ninth to not back it up, forcing it into the Supreme,  and getting a constitutional win that the state can't simply rework to comply but not actually change anything - a la the 10 day wait.
Link Posted: 4/29/2017 2:09:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Link Posted: 4/30/2017 12:58:20 AM EDT
[#18]
Link Posted: 5/8/2017 2:13:17 PM EDT
[#19]
I have been working my way through the process of bringing my rifles into compliance with the upcoming laws.  After looking things over, I am favoring the featureless approach.  What is PISSING ME OFF is the magazine restrictions.  I have many magazines that are/were grandfathered in.  Now, oops, they changed their mind.  I have to destroy them.

Is an injunction against implementation part of the plans for these law suits?  We really need that to prevent the fundamental harm from these unconstitutional "laws".  

If there's no injunction, we have to destroy our high cap magazines by July 1st.
Link Posted: 5/8/2017 3:52:01 PM EDT
[#20]
Is disassembly an option?

If not, I will remove them from the state before I destroy or turn them in.
Link Posted: 5/8/2017 4:58:47 PM EDT
[#21]
My relatives in other states have graciously volunteered to hold on to my mags for me

I'm going to have to try to swap my S&W 59 with my son to get my Beretta back.  That at least I can get 10 round magazines for.
Link Posted: 5/8/2017 8:14:27 PM EDT
[#22]
I have some magazines that are irreplaceable if they are destroyed - the firearm and magazines are long since out of production, the company's out of business and there's no residual stock or aftermarket magazines available.  As far as I can tell, despite several determined searches starting as far back as 1999, there are none available and it's unlikely there will ever be.

Do I have to render the firearm inoperable by destroying the magazines?  

Do I destroy the value and collectability of the firearm by permanently modifying the magazines?

These issues are why we need an injunction/stay right now!
Link Posted: 5/9/2017 2:41:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Link Posted: 5/9/2017 3:58:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Is disassembly an option?

If not, I will remove them from the state before I destroy or turn them in.
View Quote
As I understand it, given the law's vagueness, kits are not okay but parts are fine.

Just create bags for each type of part, like a bag for floor plates
Link Posted: 5/10/2017 2:44:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I have two storage places in AZ with the option to store anything else with guys I know there.

If anyone comes down to needing a place to store your mags, PM me and we can work something out.

Can't say I can store everyones mags but I can help out some that have no options.
View Quote
That is a kind offer, thank you.

I believe what I am going to do is sell the pistol out of State and buy a CA-compliant replacement.  There goes $0.5k - $1.0k I had not planned to spend.  

Replacement 10 round magazines to feed the AR's (3 required to replace a single 30 rounder), plus magazine couplers, that's hundreds more.

This is economic and political warfare, pure and simple.
Link Posted: 5/10/2017 9:05:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
As I understand it, given the law's vagueness, kits are not okay but parts are fine.

Just create bags for each type of part, like a bag for floor plates
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is disassembly an option?

If not, I will remove them from the state before I destroy or turn them in.
As I understand it, given the law's vagueness, kits are not okay but parts are fine.

Just create bags for each type of part, like a bag for floor plates
The thing is, for this firearm, there are no ten round magazines available.  If I disassemble the ones I have, I'll have none, rendering the firearm inoperable.
Link Posted: 6/12/2017 12:48:40 PM EDT
[#27]
about time!

Hoping it goes faster than the Handgun Roster lawsuit has 
Link Posted: 6/13/2017 1:33:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I have some magazines that are irreplaceable if they are destroyed - the firearm and magazines are long since out of production, the company's out of business and there's no residual stock or aftermarket magazines available.  As far as I can tell, despite several determined searches starting as far back as 1999, there are none available and it's unlikely there will ever be.

Do I have to render the firearm inoperable by destroying the magazines?  

Do I destroy the value and collectability of the firearm by permanently modifying the magazines?

These issues are why we need an injunction/stay right now!
View Quote
You might want to look into this a little more.  At our local range match a few weeks ago they were briefing on what would be done about competitions with the mag rules.  It was brought up that guns that never had ten round magazines available could keep their standard capacity ones.  If true, it seems like it applies to your situation.

I didn't check into it anymore simply because I don't have any guns that fit that particular criteria.
Link Posted: 6/13/2017 3:18:14 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
... they were briefing on what would be done about competitions with the mag rules.  

Who is "they"?  

It was brought up that guns that never had ten round magazines available could keep their standard capacity ones.  

Who brought it up?  In what way would bringing something up counteract the legislation and policy-making?

It has been a while since I read the text of the magazine law but I do not remember any such provision.  In fact, the new legislation seems to close the prior "grandfathering" of all magazine holding more than ten rounds.  I could be wrong, I hope I am.  However, I think I understand it correctly.  


Damn!  Only a few days left until the deadline.
Link Posted: 6/15/2017 1:05:44 AM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
... they were briefing on what would be done about competitions with the mag rules.  

Who is "they"?  

It was brought up that guns that never had ten round magazines available could keep their standard capacity ones.  

Who brought it up?  In what way would bringing something up counteract the legislation and policy-making?

It has been a while since I read the text of the magazine law but I do not remember any such provision.  In fact, the new legislation seems to close the prior "grandfathering" of all magazine holding more than ten rounds.  I could be wrong, I hope I am.  However, I think I understand it correctly.  


Damn!  Only a few days left until the deadline.
View Quote
I should see him this weekend at the range.  If I do, I'll ask where his information is from.  I don't think he would rattle it off in front of 50-60 people without having some basis for believing it.  We shall see I guess.

Like I said, I didn't follow up because it doesn't effect me.  When I saw your post it reminded me of the statement the guy, who is a cop or retired cop, made.  I probably should have just ignored your post and went about my business.
Link Posted: 6/15/2017 3:41:15 PM EDT
[#31]
But that's the problem.  Aside from a blizzard of send more money, send it now, send more money e-mails, we aren't getting anything in the way of status updates from the organizations directly involved in Sacramento or in litigation.  

It seems far more likely that the mindset in Sacramento is, "Screw those guys.  If it's that rare, they can give it to a museum."  They aren't looking for reasons to slack off, they'd rather get rid of all of them.  OTOH, those are the kinds of impacts that can be used in litigation.  Me, I don't have more than a handful of mags that need to be resolved.  Other folks have a lot and it won't be easy.  I think the legislation is all kinds of screwed up and making the items really permanently limited causes a problem.  They didn't have any intention of allowing some sort of temporary approach.
Link Posted: 6/15/2017 7:17:09 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
... they were briefing on what would be done about competitions with the mag rules.  

Who is "they"?  

It was brought up that guns that never had ten round magazines available could keep their standard capacity ones.  

Who brought it up?  In what way would bringing something up counteract the legislation and policy-making?

It has been a while since I read the text of the magazine law but I do not remember any such provision.  In fact, the new legislation seems to close the prior "grandfathering" of all magazine holding more than ten rounds.  I could be wrong, I hope I am.  However, I think I understand it correctly.  


Damn!  Only a few days left until the deadline.
View Quote
The original bill from the Gunmaggedon session had a provision providing an exemption for large capacity magazine for firearms for which no 10-round or less option existed.  I'm not sure how they defined that; for all one knew, some asshole making one ten round magazine for the weapon would eliminate the exemption.  But my understanding is that Prop 63 did away with that.

The court hearing for the preliminary injunction against enforcing the ban was either yesterday or today.  Obviously there will be a ruling before July 1.
Link Posted: 6/15/2017 11:16:11 PM EDT
[#33]
The problem with their logic, and perhaps yours, is that NOTHING is permanent.  There is nothing you can do that I cannot undo.  

Welds are reversed by grinding.  
Epoxy is reversed by heat.
Rivets are reversed by drilling.
Solder/braze is reversed by heat.

Then there are issues such as a ten round magazine in 458 SOCOM holds 30 rounds of 223.

There is NOTHING that's permanent.  It is impossible to comply.



Doesn't anyone do an engineering review of legislation which directly addresses technical issues.
Link Posted: 6/16/2017 2:18:07 AM EDT
[#34]
Link Posted: 6/26/2017 11:28:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The state isn't going to do anything that will allow them to have a loophole to screw you over.

Or allow us a way out of their B.S. because any level of technical engineering will show that their way of thinking goes against everything you and I or anyone else can think of!

CA politicians would rather you're a felon so that you can't own a firearm. Or vote, not that it matters as we've been overrun by liberals and democrats and voting them out would take a civil war in the state!
View Quote
Civil war would be okay.
Link Posted: 6/27/2017 10:34:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The NRA waited until the Supreme Court was stacked for the Constitution.
View Quote
How do you see things shaping up over the next 4 years?
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 8:15:47 PM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
How do you see things shaping up over the next 4 years?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
The NRA waited until the Supreme Court was stacked for the Constitution.
How do you see things shaping up over the next 4 years?
The Supreme Court has to actually take on a 2A case before they could possibly rule on it...
Link Posted: 7/1/2017 1:25:35 AM EDT
[#38]
SCOTUS is not stacked in our favour, yet.  Kennedy or one of the full-blown Leftists on the court need to be replaced by someone solid at minimum.  Two would provide a better margin for safety.  Three would ensure that Alito and Roberts could not water things down at all, as they aren't as solid as Thomas is, Scalia was, or as Gorsuch seems to be.  But for a lot of things one would be enough.
Link Posted: 7/2/2017 12:56:11 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Not holding my breath, all of a sudden the NRA wants to help us?

And when CA thumbs it's nose at the federal government again, who's gonna make them comply? Trump? Yeah, good luck with that.

You might want to start packing now, that way you're ready to go.
View Quote
A court challenge wouldn't make sense if Clinton appointed the latest judge. NRA had to wait.

CA has been resisting Trump to such a degree that they are setting themselves up for major pushback.
Link Posted: 7/2/2017 2:56:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The state isn't going to do anything that will allow them to have a loophole to screw you over.

Or allow us a way out of their B.S. because any level of technical engineering will show that their way of thinking goes against everything you and I or anyone else can think of!

CA politicians would rather you're a felon so that you can't own a firearm. Or vote, not that it matters as we've been overrun by liberals and democrats and voting them out would take a civil war in the state!
View Quote
They don't want gun owners to be felons. Might get some leftists, minorities etc caught up in the process and lose their votes.
They want more "prohibiting misdemeanors" and non violent misdemeanors that would put you in jail for a day over what it takes to make you federally prohibited.

Still get the votes, get rid of the guns.

Ideally, they just want us out of here. They want our tax money but otherwise we are a (shrinking) speedbump on the way to their little socialist utopia.
Link Posted: 7/7/2017 11:40:54 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
This is worthy of National news, certainly it is worthy of posting on the State Hometown Forum.

Lawsuit Filed Against California's Assault Weapons Control Act

The Complaint

"Desiring to acquire, possess, use, and/or transfer these constitutionally
protected firearms for lawful purposes including self-defense, but justifiably fearing
prosecution if they do, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court: (1) declare that
California Penal Code sections 30510(a), 30515(a)(1)(A-C), 30515(a)(1)(E-F),
30515(a)(3), 30520, 30600, 30605, 30925, and 30945, along with California Code of
Regulations, title 11, section 5499 (“11 C.C.R. 5499”), infringe Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights
; and (2) permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing each of
those sections to the extent they prevent law-abiding Californians, like Plaintiffs,
from acquiring, possessing, using or transferring constitutionally protected arms."
View Quote



i HOPE WE PREVAIL!!!

Impala
Link Posted: 7/7/2017 1:35:20 PM EDT
[#42]
Bye bye BB's!
Link Posted: 7/7/2017 6:46:27 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
They don't want gun owners to be felons. Might get some leftists, minorities etc caught up in the process and lose their votes.
They want more "prohibiting misdemeanors" and non violent misdemeanors that would put you in jail for a day over what it takes to make you federally prohibited.

Still get the votes, get rid of the guns.

Ideally, they just want us out of here. They want our tax money but otherwise we are a (shrinking) speedbump on the way to their little socialist utopia.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
The state isn't going to do anything that will allow them to have a loophole to screw you over.

Or allow us a way out of their B.S. because any level of technical engineering will show that their way of thinking goes against everything you and I or anyone else can think of!

CA politicians would rather you're a felon so that you can't own a firearm. Or vote, not that it matters as we've been overrun by liberals and democrats and voting them out would take a civil war in the state!
They don't want gun owners to be felons. Might get some leftists, minorities etc caught up in the process and lose their votes.
They want more "prohibiting misdemeanors" and non violent misdemeanors that would put you in jail for a day over what it takes to make you federally prohibited.

Still get the votes, get rid of the guns.

Ideally, they just want us out of here. They want our tax money but otherwise we are a (shrinking) speedbump on the way to their little socialist utopia.
Umm, felons can vote in CA if they are not in prison or jail.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top