Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,370 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just got the email from SAF.

FED. JUDGE RULES CAL’S ‘3-TO-1’ HANDGUN LAW PROVISION MAY VIOLATE 2A
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is applauding a ruling by a federal judge in Southern California that a provision in the state’s new handgun roster law, requiring the removal of three handguns already on the roster that can be sold, to make room for each new handgun added to the list may violate the Second Amendment.​
The ruling by U.S. District Chief Judge Dana Sabraw, is a slap at California’s law, which took effect Jan. 1 of this year. The lawsuit was brought by SAF, the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Firearms Policy Coalition and a private citizen, Lana Rae Renna, for whom the case Renna v. Becerra is named. They sued California in November. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Raymond DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C. and Michael Sousa of San Diego.​
In his 15-page ruling, Judge Sabraw, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that plaintiffs “have sufficiently pled the UHA (“Unsafe Handgun Act”) substantially impacts their Second Amendment rights and thus burdens conduct protected by the Amendment.”​
The judge also observed that the defendants offered “no justification for why the statute requires the removal of three handguns for each new handgun added (to the roster), instead of, for instance, a proportional one-to-one.”​
He also noted, “Plaintiffs allege the UHA’s roster imposes a significant burden on their Second Amendment rights. Specifically, the (complaint) alleges the number of handguns available for purchase on the roster continues to decline and ultimately will ‘shrink into oblivion’ as handguns are removed from the roster, including by AB 2847’s three-for-one provision. Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, this limits the ability of law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms, which is critical to ensuring the Second Amendment right to keep arms.”​
“This case shows California’s amended handgun law seems ultimately designed to shrink the available number of approved handguns to virtually zero,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Judge Sabraw appears to recognize this unconstitutional dilemma near the end of his opinion.”​

Weblink to story above:

SAF is kinda kill'n it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
Now the National Wayne Association would actually get on board, there'd be a chance for a BIG difference. Cudos to the SAF!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1024Megabytes

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,238 Posts
The premise that only "safe" handguns can be on the roster is logically flawed. LE personnel aren't prohibited from purchasing and carrying, for duty purposes, handguns which are not on the roster. They carried Gen 4 Glocks, as an example, when the Gen 4 first came onto the market, but the Gen 4 is still not considered safe enough to be on the roster.

Surely, if the Gen 4 is safe enough for duty use, it should be safe enough for peasant use.

Seriously, that should be added to arguments against the roster's continued existence, at all--not just to the replacement scheme.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,667 Posts
Thanks to precedent, they CAN limit things using safety as an excuse. That's how building codes are enforced, and at a certain level, they make sense. Protect the consumer from unscrupulous contractors, etc.

But there's no constitutional right to a safe building, it's only a liability and safety issue.

But as you say...if it's good enough for the LEO, it's good enough for me.

Taken to the next level...if it's legal for the LEO, it should be legal for me.

And the next short step SHOULD be, if it's legal for the military, it's legal for me. Period. And yes, I mean tanks and nukes and everything else.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,090 Posts
And the next short step SHOULD be, if it's legal for the military, it's legal for me. Period. And yes, I mean tanks and nukes and everything else.
You are not serious are you? I don't think the average American citizen should have nuclear missles or bombs. Those are weapons of mass destruction and annihilation. The footage of the Castle Bravo bomb they set off in 1954 is darn scary. It is very alarming to me that Beijing Biden has access to these weapons.

But I agree that there are way too many restrictions on full automatic weapons. Average American citizens should be able to get a full auto, magazine fed and select fire, long gun with very few restrictions if they want to that was made after the year 1986.

I also wish 20 milimeter firearms were also not considered "destructive devices" with all these restrictions on them along with steel tipped and steel core ammo.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,370 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
You are not serious are you? I don't think the average American citizen should have nuclear missles or bombs. Those are weapons of mass destruction and annihilation.
The general concern is that once a limitation is set, i.e.: "weapons of mass destruction," then the precedent is set for an infringement. In this case "weapons of mass destruction" is set as a goal post and the definition of it can be changed. What does "mass destruction" mean and can the definition of "mass destruction" be changed or tweaked later on? How many times have you heard gun prohibitionists refer to the AR as a "weapon of mass destruction?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Think1st and ajole

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,667 Posts
You are not serious are you? I don't think the average American citizen should have nuclear missles or bombs. Those are weapons of mass destruction and annihilation. The footage of the Castle Bravo bomb they set off in 1954 is darn scary. It is very alarming to me that Beijing Biden has access to these weapons.

But I agree that there are way too many restrictions on full automatic weapons. Average American citizens should be able to get a full auto, magazine fed and select fire, long gun with very few restrictions if they want to that was made after the year 1986.

I also wish 20 milimeter firearms were also not considered "destructive devices" with all these restrictions on them along with steel tipped and steel core ammo.
Absolutely and completely serious.
Freedom is....or it isn't.

Mass destruction and annihilation are sometimes necessary.

That said...should there be laws about storage, security, and SERIOUS laws about the abuse of those? Certainly.

Just like SOME speed limits are needed because SOME people are idiots.
Notice, Germany allows you to drive as fast as you want...but ONLY on roads designed to allow for that, and it's hard to get your license, and they DON'T allow teenagers to drive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rerun

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,090 Posts
If someone has the money to get their own tank I have no problem with that (if they are not using it for tyranny or evil purposes.) You would not be allowed to drive it on public roads in normal situations.

I am guessing what you are saying is State governments should have access to nuclear weapons as a check against the Federal government. I do not agree the normal citizens should have access to nuclear arms. If someone used a nuclear weapon wrongfully over 200,000 people could die. It's too much power for an individual to have.

But coming back to California's law, the State is definitely infringing on a citizen's right to buy handguns. A stupid California list they are making smaller and smaller of approved handguns for the common people is just tyranny.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
I get what Megabytes is saying. My problem is that the term "weapon of mass destruction", like assault weapon or Saturday night special, is subjective. Shotguns, which fire a multi-projectile round, can be classed as WMD, just as a scoped deer rifle can be classified as a sniper rifle. As Ajole said - it is or it isn't. And seriously, IF this were the case, who could actually afford personal nukes? A tank, maybe (Tha'd be cool at the range!), but nukes? Regardless, the point is that we either have freedom or we don't. We my voluntarily give up some of that (as in the traffic law example), but no one should be able to take it away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajole and Rerun

·
I Stand With Talon
Joined
·
6,459 Posts
Should have the right to "any firearm issued to or commonly carried by a soldier". Nuclear missiles are not commonly issued to or carried by a soldier, and before anyone says it... grenades are not classified as firearms and would not be covered under this.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,370 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Should have the right to "any firearm issued to or commonly carried by a soldier". Nuclear missiles are not commonly issued to or carried by a soldier, and before anyone says it... grenades are not classified as firearms and would not be covered under this.
Based on the fact that the government issued Letters of Mark during and after the Revolutionary War, allowing private parties to outfit their private units with capacities and capabilities matching that of government managed/funded large organized units (regiments and naval ships), I'd say that within the historical context the 2nd was not intended to be limited to small arms, or arms carried/used by individual soldiers, but rather to allow private citizens to be able to achieve military parity with the government.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rerun and histed

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,238 Posts
The general concern is that once a limitation is set, i.e.: "weapons of mass destruction," then the precedent is set for an infringement. In this case "weapons of mass destruction" is set as a goal post and the definition of it can be changed. What does "mass destruction" mean and can the definition of "mass destruction" be changed or tweaked later on? How many times have you heard gun prohibitionists refer to the AR as a "weapon of mass destruction?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
I seem to recall that the knucklehead who just about killed himself by shooting a lawnmower tractor full of Tannerite was charged with manufacturing a weapon of mass destruction. My memory might be a little off, but there was a charge to that effect leveled against him
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
Based on the fact that the government issued Letters of Mark during and after the Revolutionary War, allowing private parties to outfit their private units with capacities and capabilities matching that of government managed/funded large organized units (regiments and naval ships), I'd say that within the historical context the 2nd was not intended to be limited to small arms, or arms carried/used by individual soldiers, but rather to allow private citizens to be able to achieve military parity with the government.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
You beat me to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rerun

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,601 Posts
There are privately owned fleets of fighter jets, like that one company in Florida who recently acquired a number of F-18s from Australia. There's also notable collections of functioning, working tanks in private hands, although only a few have the NFA DD stamps for their main cannons and ammo, most only have dummy cannons/guns. Not sure if there's any privately owned warships larger than a PT/coastal patrol boat that still have gun turrets and such.. i know there were a few boats with turrets and stuff removed and hulls used for fishing or tourism duties.

Edit. Repealing the whole of NFA and GCA laws would allow private owners to be able to outfit their warbirds, PT boats, merchantmen boats, tanks, and the like with full combat abilities, if they can afford it . Would likely give impetus to certain Private Military Contractors to expand their holdings and get into airspace and sea warfare... although laws governing air and sea spaces still exist and the somewhat pesky International waters laws that seems to say "no privately owned, armed warships"? Or some such. I could be wrong. I seem to recall that there was a rather strict International Maritime code that prevented private boats and company ships from being well-armed to fight off pirates during the recent Somalian piracy thing?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,601 Posts
Oh and @1024Megabytes and @ajole ; there is one notable young physicist by name of Taylor Wilson who built a nuclear reactor at 14, achieving nuclear fusion (hot). He is currently working on underground fission reactors that uses down blended uranium and plutonium from old nuke weapons, based on the molted salt reactors.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,090 Posts
I remember listening to a lecture CamoDeafie of a program that was talking about the possibilities of making Thorium nuclear reactors. We have a lot of Thorium in the United States (estimates put it as a power source that could be used in this nation for over 750 years). Reactors are not high pressure like many other nuclear power plants. At the same time, thorium reactors operate at standard atmospheric pressures, eliminating the need to have pressurized water. That reduces the risks of steam-based hazards and incidents.

Look at this five minute video on Thorium nuclear power possibilities:

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,995 Posts
There are privately owned fleets of fighter jets, like that one company in Florida who recently acquired a number of F-18s from Australia. There's also notable collections of functioning, working tanks in private hands, although only a few have the NFA DD stamps for their main cannons and ammo, most only have dummy cannons/guns. Not sure if there's any privately owned warships larger than a PT/coastal patrol boat that still have gun turrets and such.. i know there were a few boats with turrets and stuff removed and hulls used for fishing or tourism duties.

Edit. Repealing the whole of NFA and GCA laws would allow private owners to be able to outfit their warbirds, PT boats, merchantmen boats, tanks, and the like with full combat abilities, if they can afford it . Would likely give impetus to certain Private Military Contractors to expand their holdings and get into airspace and sea warfare... although laws governing air and sea spaces still exist and the somewhat pesky International waters laws that seems to say "no privately owned, armed warships"? Or some such. I could be wrong. I seem to recall that there was a rather strict International Maritime code that prevented private boats and company ships from being well-armed to fight off pirates during the recent Somalian piracy thing?
I thought it was rules that insurance companies had that prevented the ships from being well armed to fight off the pirates and not a law. But? And I don't feel like looking it up right now. Given I don't have a ship nor have any plan of becoming a sea dog.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,601 Posts
I thought it was rules that insurance companies had that prevented the ships from being well armed to fight off the pirates and not a law. But? And I don't feel like looking it up right now. Given I don't have a ship nor have any plan of becoming a sea dog.
Looks like its not just the insurance policy underwriters, but also most countries have laws against firms and companies from having armed guards or ban firearms on ships coming into their ports.. old article link that talks about West Africa and Asian piracy after the Somali piracy thing.
Why Is It So Hard to Stop West Africa's Vicious Pirates?
 

·
King of you Monkeys
Up down
Joined
·
19,804 Posts
Looks like its not just the insurance policy underwriters, but also most countries have laws against firms and companies from having armed guards or ban firearms on ships coming into their ports.. old article link that talks about West Africa and Asian piracy after the Somali piracy thing.
Why Is It So Hard to Stop West Africa's Vicious Pirates?
A buddy of mine used to do security of the ships. They would get picked up in one country with their weapons and just before they arrived at the end port they would dump their weapons in to the ocean.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,090 Posts
A buddy of mine used to do security of the ships. They would get picked up in one country with their weapons and just before they arrived at the end port they would dump their weapons in to the ocean.
The laws against keeping firearms on ships traveling in the ocean are ridiculous. Pirates love these laws as they make many vessels traveling in the oceans soft targets for robbery. Or they have to resort to stupid acts like the one you just mentioned like throwing their guns overboard to have protection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rerun and perotter
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top