Federal judge blocks key parts of California handgun law
Source: AP
By STEFANIE DAZIO today
LOS ANGELES (AP) A federal judge on Monday blocked key provisions of a California law that drastically restricts the sale of new handguns in the state, saying parts of the legislation violate the Second Amendment.
A lawsuit challenging the law was filed last year by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and other gun rights supporters following a landmark 2022 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that set new standards for evaluating firearm restrictions. The ruling left many laws aimed at regulating and limiting the sale and use of guns in California and nationwide at risk of being struck down.
U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney, sitting in Santa Ana, wrote Monday that Californias requirements for new handguns are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. Because of these restrictions, Carney wrote, no new models of semiautomatic handguns have been approved for sale since 2013 and Californians are forced to buy older and potentially less safe models.
He issued a preliminary injunction to take effect in two weeks, meaning the state would have to stop enforcing the law. The delay gives the state Department of Justice time to appeal.
Read more: https://apnews.com/article/california-gun-control-supreme-court-1b5bbef296f16c8f56fd16f75555c044
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)to limit Californians to only models with fewer safety features.
What was the legislature thinking?
Zeitghost
(3,796 posts)Was to create technical specifications nobody could meet and then as new models came out and old models dropped out of production the list of available handguns would become smaller and smaller until eventually no new ones would be available for sale.
melm00se
(4,975 posts)dead spot on.
Polybius
(15,239 posts)Bayard
(21,807 posts)And they should not be subjected to potentially less safe models.
sarisataka
(18,222 posts)Who purchase guns terrorists?
And do you prefer that people have guns that are lacking modern safety features?
Bayard
(21,807 posts)I have a couple myself. You need them on a farm.
I just think its ludicrous to be more concerned about new gun owners' safety when there's not enough concern for grade school classrooms being shot up. An attempt at addressing the situation, even if crude, is at least a step in the right direction. That's better than most states are doing.
Re-ban assault weapons would be a really good step, even if its not in this particular bill.
See this thread for stats:
https://democraticunderground.com/100217746668
sarisataka
(18,222 posts)Does nothing to protect school classrooms. It isn't even a crude attempt. If anything it put school age children at greater risk of injury from a negligent discharge.
I am in favor of laws that may actually increase safety. I do not believe in "we have to do something" laws that don't actually do anything positive. (Of course to some people an ineffective law that only inconveniences gun owners is enough of a positive. Increasing safety/ preventing shootings is a secondary concern)
angrychair
(8,594 posts)Safety feature could they possibly be missing out on?
A gun is a gun. Pull trigger, go bang.
It's a gun not a computer.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,283 posts)Wouldn't a rifle be more useful?
This question is from someone who once maybe saw a farm. From an Interstate.
The Mouth
(3,124 posts)have at home for protection or carry on my person than it is who I marry or what books I read.
Hopefully, eventually the 1934 and 1968 laws will be ruled unconstitutional as will any permit requirement to carry or any restrictions on anyone other than a felon or someone with a restraining order.
moniss
(3,950 posts)feat of hubris for judges and courts to treat every word of the 2nd Amendment as absolutely definitive and ironclad while treating the words of all other laws and constitutional provisions as open to their wide nuanced interpretation. Such as a famous, long forgotten by most, case in which the Supreme Court refused to take a case where the crux of the matter was the word "never". The US government had made a legal document and used the word "never" regarding whether it would take a particular action. The US proposed to take the prohibited action later. People sued because obviously the word "never" is fairly clear. The Supremes didn't think there was anything for them to do and refused to take the case. The government then violated the clear meaning of such a simple word and took the action anyway.
Selective rigidity for interpretation of legal language seems to be fine with so very many people who hug the 2nd Amendment but who fail to display anything close to the same fervor and effort when other matters are on the receiving end of adjudication, implementation and effect.
The Mouth
(3,124 posts)Censorship is bad. Always, anywhere, in any context, by anyone, to anyone. Of course freedom of the press is limited to those who own one, but every person should have access to every book ever written, and *any* group of people should be able to assemble peacefully for the redress of grievances. I don't know if I dislike the people who hate and fear guns more than I dislike the people who want to say 'there's a book you cannot read (or read until *WE* think you meet x criteria)". Rights should always expand, yes, even the rights of bad people unless and until they actually impinge on your life, liberty, or property.
There should be exactly zero governmental authority over which adult I marry, what I put in my body, what kind of art I create or consume, what measures I take to defend person and property or what political opinions I am legally allowed to explicate and/or advocate for, (with only the old, commonsense limitations of defamation of character and incitement to riot, etc). Just because I believe in unions, universal healthcare, equal rights under the law for all, and not rendering the earth uninhabitable doesn't mean I will ever support or not fight any attempt to roll back any right extant under the constitution.
Mosby
(16,168 posts)It's your kidney, right?
The Mouth
(3,124 posts)moniss
(3,950 posts)you cite and for good reason. Individual liberty for example does not give you the right to marry too close in family relationships because of what may happen to the children from such a relationship and the resulting burden on society. Likewise there are regulations for what you consume because if you insist on individual "freedom" to put all kinds of wacko home remedies in your body and you end up convulsing on the floor it is most likely that the person doing so is going to go to the hospital and possibly end up as another problem for society to shoulder. So yes that is the social compact. We as a whole society do get to have a say about what things happen within our society that individuals might do that end up coming back on society.
Libertarian ideology fails every time in a society because the actions of one can and often do impact the others. The libertarian who claims they won't use the doctors etc. for example is simply lying because experience tells us that as soon as the "house is on fire" the libertarian is screaming the loudest for help and will in fact demand to be at the head of the line. There is no absolute right to use any force you choose to prevent someone from taking vegetables from your garden.
I and many other people who believe in common sense gun laws do not fear or hate guns. We do fear and hate people who zealously cuddle their guns and make the claim that guns should be widely available for everyone at any time with no regard to their mental health, criminal record, domestic abuse record, age etc. The zealous, absolutist application of the 2nd Amendment has resulted in the widespread, largely unregulated ability to buy massively deadly weapons and cause nearly instantaneous mass casualties. It is the only wording in the Constitution/Amendments that places this lethal ability in the hands of virtually anybody on the street. There are not a long list of deaths every year because of freedom of speech for example.
f_townsend
(260 posts)Let us know about the occasion when a stolen copy of a Danielle Steele novel was used to hold up and shoot a clerk in a convenience store, or to kill some innocent person during a carjacking, or to blow a police officer's brains out who responded to a call.
However, I have heard of countless thousands of times when a handgun stolen from a car was used to commit a violent -- and often, fatal -- crime.
I have also heard of many times when a stolen gun's registration information helped law enforcement put away a criminal who would ordinarily have continued to kill innocent people with the stolen gun.
We don't know how many crimes have been averted by requiring gun owners to register their firearms -- probably untold thousands of crimes were averted because the very act of firearm registration served as a vital incentive for gun owners to make absolutely sure their guns were secure from theft and "loss" (i.e. illicit sales and trades).
hack89
(39,171 posts)DVRacer
(707 posts)Where it went south for California was when almost all public safety officers testified to using off roster weapons. If California thought these were too unsafe for the public why was the expert testifying personally carrying an unsafe firearm? The judge couldnt get an honest answer from the individual.
hardluck
(634 posts)So it's a roster of "safe" handguns and handguns on off the roster are not safe. Yet, all police agencies are exempted from the roster and they are all carrying "unsafe" handguns. Moreover, you can still buy off-roster handguns, they just need to be purchased in a person-to-person transfer with an FFL. And who is the one selling the off-roster handguns? Police officers who can buy these handguns and then sell them for a 100% to 200% markup. Look at Calguns. A price for an off-roster HK is more than double the retail price - for a used handgun.
Further, they passed a statute a few years ago require three handguns to be removed for every one handgun added to the roster. The roster, as a whole*, is clearly not directed at safety but is a slow-ban of handguns.
*The roster's droptest was not affected by this ruling and I would think is within the state's power to enforce.
Initech
(99,915 posts)maxsolomon
(32,992 posts)They sue immediately after any new laws are passed, but why are Gun Rights Groups tolerating the restrictions on full-automatic weapons from the FFA of 1938? Why aren't those being challenged?
All 'fringements must go! Firearms must be free!
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,905 posts)But they are laying the groundwork first. Once they can get a ruling to overturn assault weapons bans, they will use that to go after the NFA.
sl8
(13,584 posts)One issue that's come up has to do with the NFA as a valid tax measure. It didn't ban automatic weapons, but it did require that they be taxed and registered. SCOTUS said fine, that's a valid use of Congress' power to tax. Then the 1986 FOPA came along and closed the registry. Now, the government won't allow newly made automatic firearms to be taxed and registered. Are the 1934 NFA tax requirements still a valid tax measure, if the government refuses to allow the tax to be paid?
The most recent case I recall, Bonzonian v U.S., made it to SCOTUS, but the indictment was dropped while cert was still pending. I'm pretty sure there's been a couple similar cases where the goverment dropped charges before the cases got very far in the appeals process.
Zeitghost
(3,796 posts)n/t
TeamProg
(5,788 posts)is NOT ABSOLUTE.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,905 posts)Lots of hoops to jump through, but provided you already have the storage issue figured out, it's probably quicker to get the necessary licenses and paperwork filled out for a grenade then it is to get a legal machine gun.
TeamProg
(5,788 posts)https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/weapons-firearms/is-it-legal-own-hand-grenades
Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act ("NFA" , a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess "destructive devices," which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There's no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law's provisionsnon-military people may not possess them.
What's Defined as a Hand Grenade?
While it's obvious that military-style grenades are illegal to possess, it's not so obvious when dealing with other items that could, under the law's definition, be classified as a grenade. What about a training device, or a smoke bomb, or even a firecracker? When faced with these questions, courts have come to inconsistent conclusions.
What Are "Destructive Devices"?
Under the NFA, the term "destructive device" includes three types of explosives or weapons:
Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevantmere possession is enough for a conviction.
Any type of weapon, no matter its name, that will (or may be readily converted to) expel a projectile using an explosive or other propellant (with a barrel bore of more than one-half inch; certain shotguns may be excepted). As in category 1, the intended use is not relevant, because possession alone is all that's required for a conviction.
Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term destructive device' does not include any device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon (such as a stick of commercial dynamite); or any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, that is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device.
The problematic part of the "destructive device" definition is the third definition. While it's clear that a person's state of mind is not relevant when dealing with devices that fall into one of the first two categories, that's not the case with the third. Courts have come to inconsistent conclusions when considering whether the state of mind of the person charged matters, when caught with a combination of components, or an assembled device, that could be used either innocently or for destructive purposes.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,905 posts)Such as a grenade. It's 100% legal Federally, state laws may vary, to possess a registered one. Or to make your own. I personally know a lawyer who specializes in NFA law and he has clients with hand grenades, 40mm grenade launchers, 105mm artillery, etc. For destructive devices such as artillery or grenade launchers, you simply need to register it as a destructive device. Same for non-explosive projectiles for them. For explosive projectiles and grenades, you need a federal explosives license and approved explosive storage magazine. Plus compliance with all state/local laws and insurance requirements. Comply with that and you can have your grenade. Or more likely, make one, since no company will sell you one. That and the storage requirement is the real hurdle to owning explosives, though my friend tells me that people get around it by using binary explosives that are kept separate. Until they are mixed properly, they aren't explosive, just like tannerite.
TeamProg
(5,788 posts)DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,905 posts)Weapons laws in the US are all over the place.
ripcord
(5,084 posts)PSPS
(13,516 posts)NickB79
(19,117 posts)Funny, because it sounds like President Obama and the DNC said it was in 2012.
https://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2012_DNC_Platform_Gun_Control.htm
f_townsend
(260 posts)is an absolute, unfettered right.
Only that the right of "The People" to "bear and keep arms" for the sake of serving in the then-relevant but now-obsolete well regulated state militias could not be infringed upon by the federal government.
Basically, the People (at that time, consisting of white male citizens of military age) had the right to be their own military force, and that the states had the right to sponsor and maintain well organized, trained, and disciplined state militias without fear of the federal government disbanding them. In return, those state militias were to uphold federal law, keep the peace, and to protect the federal government and the rest of the nation from the tyranny of foreign invaders, domestic insurrectionists, and domestic usurpers.
That DNC platform is just the Democrats trying not to be called "gun grabbers".
NickB79
(19,117 posts)But all one has to do is look at the State Constitutions of the original 13 States to see a lot of talk of an individual right to bear arms for defense of home and family.
As for your last sentence, is it your position that the DNC is purposely lying to voters then? What other parts of the DNC platform are therefore suspect?
f_townsend
(260 posts)in relation to "bearing arms". And it was understood that it referring to defense of their homes from foreign invaders and domestic enemies. Not that there's anything wrong with maintaining a firearm to protect a home and family in residence from criminals, but it's referring to protection from the same type of forces that would threaten the state.
NY State's constitution makes this clear, even though there it didn't specifically mention link bearing and keeping arms with protection of home and selves:
XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same; may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth.(12) And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.
As far as the US Constitution is concerned, however, the individual right to keep arms was guaranteed only on the condition that one was to serve in their respective well regulated state militia. If one were to abstain from service, or if the militia simply didn't exist to serve in? Then any individual constitutional right to keep guns or some other weapon is null and void, and state legislation (and even possibly federal legislation) can dictate gun ownership. Didn't matter -- even states that have no "right to bear arms" clauses always allowed for basic gun ownership. So all the talk about "Nazi" and "government oppression" of the right to own a firearm has always been bunk.
I don't speak for the DNC, and I didn't bring the subject up -- that's just more passive-aggressive argumentation on your part.
NickB79
(19,117 posts)But they weren't recognized as members of the militia.
Have there ever been ANY historical precedents where the lack of militia service barred an American from firearm ownership? Not ownership of specific weapons of war, but any firearm in general?
As for the DNC, you may not speak for them, but you clearly accused them of lying to Americans to get their votes.
f_townsend
(260 posts)But by the 2A, women and anyone not participating in the state militias had no Constitutional right to firearm ownership. There is a difference. The 2A allows state government, and even the federal government, the legislative right to regulate any aspect of firearm ownership except that it prevents the federal gov't from preventing a state militiaman from serving in the militia and to disarm him if he's serving -- exceptions notwithstanding (if he's a criminal, etc.) The latter is a Constitutionally-protected right; nothing else is. The 2A actually allows for any and all gun control except for disarming a state militiaman (within reason).
But the federal government never passed or tried to pass any legislation to disarm non-participants, even though by the 2A, it had the right to do so. And there were hundreds of local and state gun control ordinances in early America, many written and passed by the same people who ratified the BOR in their respective states, but not one recorded disagreement about any of it. Because none of it violated the 2A. They understood the amendment 1000x better than any of today's gun lobby cult members who delude themselves they are upholding the 2A.
Had the Army of Northern Virginia not agreed to voluntarily turn over their arms at the conclusion of the Civil War, then the federal government would have made good on legislation to bar southerners from owning firearms.
angrychair
(8,594 posts)"Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns"
This is NOT in the Constitution. I looked. No right exist to have a modern gun. To be honest, it's an interesting loophole.
Craft a law to only allow muskets and flintlock pistols. People are still free to buy a gun so their right to keep and bare arms is not being infringed. Their is no Constitutional requirements that it be specific type of weapon.
yagotme
(2,848 posts)Let's craft a law that you can only use a manually operated printing press, as there's no mention in the Constitution of a computer...
Sounds rather silly, doesn't it?