Big positive news from CA

[Jeppo]

Assuming this doesn’t blow up on appeal, it looks like CA gun stores may soon have countless new handgun options.

Judge: California law mandating handgun safety features violates Second Amendment | The Hill

[Nemo288]

Good news.
Here is the Associated Press version:

Federal judge blocks key parts of California handgun law | AP News

"In California, state law requires new handguns to have three components: A chamber load indicator, which shows whether the gun is loaded; a magazine disconnect mechanism that will stop the gun from firing if the magazine is not properly inserted; and microstamping capability so law enforcement can more easily link spent shell casings to the guns they were fired from.

“No handgun available in the world has all three of these features,” the judge wrote. “These regulations are having a devastating impact on Californians’ ability to acquire and use new, state-of-the-art handguns.”

“Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves,” he wrote. “They should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home.”

[Racer X]

huge boon for the manufacturers, as they just got tens of millions of potential customers instantly.

[murphydog]

The decision has to work its way up the Federal judiciary, so I wouldn't put down any deposits on "free state" models yet.

[robertrwalsh]

I wonder if he stayed pending appeal. I suspect yes. I would bet money the state will appeal.

[CH4]

The 9th circus can let it go or risk the likelihood of getting spanked by SCOTUS. Good chance the 2nd CA will be the crash test dummy for a judicial spanking. Alito and Thomas have already fired a warning shot across the 2nd CA’s bow.

[stansdds]

I would not celebrate just yet, it will likely be appealed and maybe all the way to the SCOTUS.

[BSA1]

Originally Posted by robertrwalsh

I wonder if he stayed pending appeal. I suspect yes. I would bet money the state will appeal.

The Judge issued a two week injunction so the State can appeal.

[BSA1]

Originally Posted by CH4

The 9th circus can let it go or risk the likelihood of getting spanked by SCOTUS. Good chance the 2nd CA will be the crash test dummy for a judicial spanking. Alito and Thomas have already fired a warning shot across the 2nd CA’s bow.

I wonder if this ruling is a result of Bruen?

It may bit interesting. The 9th Circuit is going to have to weigh following the President’s order that all semi-automatic firearms should be banned by ruling for the State vs. having the case go to a Conservative and so-far pro-2A Supreme Court.

[robertrwalsh]

The President did not issue an ORDER that all semi-automatics should be banned. Even he isn't that stupid. He has voice an opinion along those lines. He wants to bring the bureaucracy into the fight to throw as many road blocks as he can. He can't ban them by executive decree, even though he wishes he could.

[llowry61]

This question is for the attorney's on the forum. I am confused about how California can have a registry if it is not lawful. When I read about California law it is confusing to say the least. Does the DOJ in California have a database with the owner and the firearm serial number that is submitted by the FFL ? If so, how is this legal?

I hope this is the right place for this question and I am not trying to start a defamation of California thread, I am just trying to understand it and how California differs from other states where the bound book records are all retained by the FFL.

Thanks in advance,

L

[mauser9]

California sounds pretty ridiculous anyway concerning everything. Pass whatever they want anyway. Good state to avoid.

[LVSteve]

The CA gun registry is a bad joke because there is no requirement for update. I know this because one of my guns used to belong to a distant relative who had lived there. Through a set of bizarre circumstances, the state checked on this gun and asked me about his other guns. Those guns had gone with him to Idaho long before I even came to the US. The state official sort of spluttered when I told them this, so I asked "So how was he supposed to deregister them when leaving CA". Apparently, they had no means to do that.

The handgun registry (Blue Card) in two counties in NV was as bad. When I went to put late wife#1's pistol under my name, I told them "Oh, and take my wife out of your system because she has passed". The lady looked at me and said, "I don't think there's a way to do that. How you came by the gun is of no interest to us". The Blue Card system went away a few years back having been with us since the 60s I think. In that time it was said it had solved precisely one crime.

[llowry61]

Originally Posted by LVSteve

The CA gun registry is a bad joke because there is no requirement for update. I know this because one of my guns used to belong to a distant relative who had lived there. Through a set of bizarre circumstances, the state checked on this gun and asked me about his other guns. Those guns had gone with him to Idaho long before I even came to the US. The state official sort of spluttered when I told them this, so I asked "So how was he supposed to deregister them when leaving CA". Apparently, they had no means to do that.

The handgun registry (Blue Card) in two counties in NV was as bad. When I went to put late wife#1's pistol under my name, I told them "Oh, and take my wife out of your system because she has passed". The lady looked at me and said, "I don't think there's a way to do that. How you came by the gun is of no interest to us". The Blue Card system went away a few years back having been with us since the 60s I think. In that time it was said it had solved precisely one crime.

Thanks LVSteve, I meant to start this as it's own thread, but somehow attached it to this one.

[steelslaver]

California has some of the nations strictest gun laws. Lets look at what that has actually accomplished.

California has 11.8% of the US population. Yet since 2012 California has been the location of 20% of mass public shootings and 20.8% of mass shooting deaths in the US.
California had the 3rd highest robbery rates in the nation, behind Maryland and the District of Columbia, also 2 other strict gun law areas. The national rate was 73.9 and California's was a whopping 118.3. DC, home of the governing bodies, had an unbelievable 332.9, per 100,000 or 1 in 30.

I fortunately (more like wisely) live in Montana where the rate is 25.8 yet, it is supposed to have the highest gun ownership rate of any state at 66.3% and California has a 28.3% rate of gun ownership. HUMMM Montana has over twice the percentage of gun owners and less than 1/4 the robberies per capita. Imagine that. Plus, despite all the gun owners and the left coaster fleeing the chaos by moving to Montana and the fact you can carry around all the loaded guns you want with no permit what so ever, and about the only gun free zones are inside school buildings, court rooms and Federal buildings we have a lower murder rate. HOW VERY ODD

I will patiently wait for someone to explain how more and stricter gun laws have worked.

It isn't a gun problem, it is a people problem. The people bent on murder the most heinous of crimes do not care about the gun laws. That is as obvious as it gets, yet, the
"GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES" don't get it

Never in history have laws have stopped criminals from being criminals nor irresponsible idiots from being irresponsible idiots. It isn't going to start now no matter how many laws they pass

[s&wchad]

Originally Posted by steelslaver

DC, home of the governing bodies, had an unbelievable 332.9, per 100,000 or 1 in 30.

I agree that gun control laws don't reduce crime, but you might want to check your math...
333/100,000 is about 1 in 300.

[Oldsalt66]

Originally Posted by steelslaver

California has some of the nations strictest gun laws. Lets look at what that has actually accomplished.

California has 11.8% of the US population. Yet since 2012 California has been the location of 20% of mass public shootings and 20.8% of mass shooting deaths in the US.
California had the 3rd highest robbery rates in the nation, behind Maryland and the District of Columbia, also 2 other strict gun law areas. The national rate was 73.9 and California's was a whopping 118.3. DC, home of the governing bodies, had an unbelievable 332.9, per 100,000 or 1 in 30.

I fortunately (more like wisely) live in Montana where the rate is 25.8 yet, it is supposed to have the highest gun ownership rate of any state at 66.3% and California has a 28.3% rate of gun ownership. HUMMM Montana has over twice the percentage of gun owners and less than 1/4 the robberies per capita. Imagine that. Plus, despite all the gun owners and the left coaster fleeing the chaos by moving to Montana and the fact you can carry around all the loaded guns you want with no permit what so ever, and about the only gun free zones are inside school buildings, court rooms and Federal buildings we have a lower murder rate. HOW VERY ODD

I will patiently wait for someone to explain how more and stricter gun laws have worked.

It isn't a gun problem, it is a people problem. The people bent on murder the most heinous of crimes do not care about the gun laws. That is as obvious as it gets, yet, the
"GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES" don't get it

Never in history have laws have stopped criminals from being criminals nor irresponsible idiots from being irresponsible idiots. It isn't going to start now no matter how many laws they pass

It's never really been about reducing crime.

[bgrafsr]

Originally Posted by Oldsalt66

It's never really been about reducing crime.

Howard Metzenbaum, an embarrassment to the State of Ohio.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by bgrafsr

Howard Metzenbaum, an embarrassment to the State of Ohio.

Poster boy for the anti’s.

[llowry61]

I remember Metzenbaum - vaguely, I might add.......

[luvsmiths]

Originally Posted by Oldsalt66

It's never really been about reducing crime.

Yeah, well, looks like he got dead first.

[bushmaster1313]

I will patiently wait for someone to explain how more and stricter gun laws have worked.

More and stricter gun laws protect affluent professionals (who live in relatively crime free neighborhoods and never walk by themselves in the dark on deserted streets after riding the bus home from working a night shift) from the scourge of gun violence.

What don’t you understand?

[dave1918a2]

[QUOTE=steelslaver;141703971]California has some of the nations strictest gun laws. Lets look at what that has actually accomplished.


It isn't a gun problem, it is a people problem. The people bent on murder the most heinous of crimes do not care about the gun laws. That is as obvious as it gets, yet, the
"GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES" don't get it

It's not about 'gun' control. It's about people control.

[GaryS]

I'm putting this here since the laws being challenged are similar.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a lower federal court ruling that the approved handgun roster law and MA Attorney Generals consumer protection regulations were Constitutional.

The case was remanded back to the District court for further proceedings in light of Bruen.

This is the entire text of the order. Oral arguments were heard earlier this week and judgement was entered today.

JUDGMENT
Entered: April 7, 2023
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol ***'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), the district court's judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. In remanding this matter, we take no position on the outcome previously
reached by the district court, and we do not retain jurisdiction. Rather, in the event that any party contests the district court's decision, a timely new notice of appeal should be filed. No costs are awarded.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by GaryS

I'm putting this here since the laws being challenged are similar.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a lower federal court ruling that the approved handgun roster law and MA Attorney Generals consumer protection regulations were Constitutional.

The case was remanded back to the District court for further proceedings in light of Bruen.

This is the entire text of the order. Oral arguments were heard earlier this week and judgement was entered today.

It is great news to read that judges on Courts of Appeal are taking Bruen seriously.