Cali Court sides with Gun owners

[TAB]

Sorry to tell you TAB, but the Judge isn't legal in CA.

thats not ture.  its perfectly legal to own and  use.  a ffl can not sell it to a non leo.  there is nothing stopring it from being bought person to person.  Importing one is not legal unless your a leo or a ffl, but that ffl can only sell it to a leo.

[Hazcat]

I'm sorry that you can't see that when the glass had a hole in it getting it half full is a definite improvement.

Challenging a law over 'semantics' is NOT effective.  The law is right (good) or not.  Having it turned back because of grammar is BS.

[Hazcat]

thats not ture.  its perfectly legal to own and  use.  a ffl can not sell it to a non leo.  there is nothing stopring it from being bought person to person.  Importing one is not legal unless your a leo or a ffl, but that ffl can only sell it to a leo.

Splitting hairs once again.  IS it legal or not?  Citizen can't buy one from an FFL?  Then I call it illegal and BS.

[TAB]

you talked about spliting hairs and using grammer.

thats how things are done.  do you know why we have a pproved handgun list?( atleast legally)  its for safety, they want to make sure guns don't blow up and pass drop tests.

just like why drugs are illegal.  drugs are taxed, they just make it so you can't pay the tax.

[david86440]

thats not ture.  its perfectly legal to own and  use.  a ffl can not sell it to a non leo.  there is nothing stopring it from being bought person to person.  Importing one is not legal unless your a leo or a ffl, but that ffl can only sell it to a leo.

I'll reword it..........The Judge is not on the CADOJ list of approved handguns for sale in CA.

Effective January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from this requirement.

[Sponsor]

[Rob10ring]

They'll go back and specify exactly what they want to call handgun ammunition and have no problem ramming a new law down our throats.

The Judge: A rep from Taurus told me that because the gun is designed to fire the .410 shotgun shell, it falls under CA's short-barrel shotgun law and is completely illegal to sell, or own (other than LE). Also, because it has a rotating cylinder, it falls under our assault weapon ban. Typical CA BS!

[TAB]

if that is true I know sevral people that are commiting felonys right now.  funny that they leaglly transfered the guns thru a ffl too.

[MikeBjerum]

Using the Judge as an example of what is wrong in CA and is bad policy for us:

Any time you have an approved list of guns that can be purchased from an FFL but you allow private purchase, transfer and import of others you are playing into the hands of the anit's.  When you start playing the grammar, verbage and punctuation game with legislation you are also playing into the hands of the anti's.

Allowing one type of purchase or transfer with an FFL and another privately you are opening up to a can of worms that leads to more restriction.  Look at the so called gun show loophole.  This is nothing more than "kitchen table" sales and trades taking place in an organized event, but the anti's started pushing for FFL only transfer or at least Brady checks on all transfers.  They have not gotten their way on this, but they have still moved their attack on to all private transfers that take place.

Can anyone else envision the problems with the "approved" list but not holding private transfer or import to it?  Every time an "unapproved" gun shows up in a crime, search or investigation, and every time a gun is seen at a gun show that is not on "the list" the anti's will be all over it with negative press and spin in ink.

Example one is a classic of a fearful people that feel their world is out of control.  They don't care as much about anything else except that they want control.  They want control of their lives, and they are lashing out at an item that they fear.  It has been said millions of times, and I will repeat - "It isn't about guns as much as it is about control."

Example two is what happens when too many groups or organizations are allowed to legislate or rule.  The patchwork of regulations erode Rights, hinder enforcement, turn honest citizens into criminals unintentionally, and actually help criminals skirt the laws. Do people actually believe that a state organization that inspects guns and approves or disapproves is going to do a better job than the company engineers and the insurance companies that cover those companies' liability?

The ruling of this court on the basis of grammatical issues has us perched at the top of the same slippery slope as the famous comma that either is or isn't in the Second Amendment and how it changes the meaning dramatically.  All the writings of the founding fathers and their reasons for this amendment are being thrown out the window over an errant comma.

[fightingquaker13]

Ok,let me weigh in here on a point of fact, not opinion. In theory, a court can only over turn a law for two reasons. The firsrt is that it is either unconstitutional or other wise exceeded the authority of the legislative or rule making body. The law is delared void because the power to pass it never existed. Think of the flag burning law, McCain Feingold, Heller, or limits on abortion rights as examples.
The second basis, and one rarely used is what is called the "rational basis" test. Courts are (in theory) reluctant to overturn a law because they think it is a bad idea. Thats what elections are for. BUT, if the law itself, while permissable in scope, is arbitrary, vague, or unenforceable, precedent says that courts can overturn it. Historically, fewer than one in ten cases of judicial review use this rationale. It is rare that a court says to the legislature "What the hell were you thinking?". This is one of those cases.  It says nothing about gun rights pro or con. It does however, force the legislature to deal with the complexity of precisley defining restrictions that can be understood by a reasonable person. I think the Ca. legislature will find this a somewhat difficult task without running afoul of Heller or MacDonald. Its far from just a matter of semantics.
FQ13

[Herknav]

WOW! A Fresno Judge that has a brain!!!,....Since it was ruled in the NRA's/CRPA's favor, the STATE shoul pay the legal fees.

Oh, wait,....Ca. is still broke,....

Nevermind.....

2nd Amend. Proponents: 1
Grasseating, bong smoking, cooty scratching, Moonbeam lovin', Birkenstock wearing, liberal asshats: 0

What's wrong with Birkenstocks?