More good news out of Cali.. Micro stamp Bill on hold

“It makes unlawful magazines that are commonly used in handguns by law abiding citizens for self-defense. And it substantially burdens the core right of self-defense guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment,” Judge Kenneth Lee wrote in the majority opinion. “It cannot stand.”

But he and the appeals court went further by declaring unconstitutional a state law that had prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000. That law had let those who had the magazines before then keep them, but barred new sales or imports.

What happened did the north and south pole switch today? Two favorable gun things out of California? I know it’s my birthday today but come on.

Saltwater60 said:

What happened did the north and south pole switch today? Two favorable gun things out of California? I know it’s my birthday today but come on.

Click to expand...

Saltwater60 said:

I know it’s my birthday today but come on.

Click to expand...

Saltwater60 said:

What happened did the north and south pole switch today? Two favorable gun things out of California? I know it’s my birthday today but come on.

Click to expand...

happy b-day .. mine is Sunday shhhhh ..

Edwardteach72 said:

if 1 new handgun gets added to the approved roster 3 existing handguns must be removed..

Click to expand...

how in the hell is it in any way Constitutional to hold hostage a person's ability to purchase firearms by requiring they have to eliminate MORE of their own property to acquire one?

Grimscale said:

how in the hell is it in any way Constitutional to hold hostage a person's ability to purchase firearms by requiring they have to eliminate MORE of their own property to acquire one?

Click to expand...

I have little doubt the law is written with a grandfather clause to avoid this attack.

And probably that one who owns one of the forbidden items cant dispose of it any way other than out of state, or by turning it in to the gubbmint.

BDinPutnam said:

I have little doubt the law is written with a grandfather clause to avoid this attack.

Click to expand...

How can a grandfather clause contradict "you must sell 3 of YOUR property to purchase 1"?

BDinPutnam said:

And probably that one who owns one of the forbidden items

Click to expand...

Does it specifically list items that require selling? Are these items forbidden?


As listed, the wording suggests that a person must sell ANY 3 items to purchase 1 new one. Not that a person only has to sell if they are banned.

Grimscale said:

How can a grandfather clause contradict "you must sell 3 of YOUR property to purchase 1"?



Does it specifically list items that require selling? Are these items forbidden?


As listed, the wording suggests that a person must sell ANY 3 items to purchase 1 new one. Not that a person only has to sell if they are banned.

Click to expand...

Where does it say "you must sell what you already have"?

What they'll try to do here is say "from now on, no one can obtain anything not on this list. If you already have it, you can keep it."

But since no one can acquire anything not on the list, an owner has no way to dispose it to someone who wants it, in CA, other than probably to the government.

Thats how the CA roster works to begin with- they're trying to make that list way, way shorter.

BDinPutnam said:

Where does it say "you must sell what you already have"?

What they'll try to do here is say "from now on, no one can obtain anything not on this list. If you already have it, you can keep it."

But since no one can acquire anything not on the list, an owner has no way to dispose it to someone who wants it, in CA, other than probably to the government.

Thats how the CA roster works to begin with- they're trying to make that list way, way shorter.

Click to expand...

Good points.

The initial summary modifies the wording to suggest a person must get rid of their property, not that the .gov must remove from their false list three handguns they have deemed "unsafe".

It does sometimes help to actually go and read the original text.

"The Department of Justice shall, for each semiautomatic pistol newly added to the roster pursuant to Section 32015, remove from the roster exactly three semiautomatic pistols lacking one or more of the applicable features described in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) and added to the roster before July 1, 2022. "


so, yes, your summary makes more sense.

Still a tyrannical and unConstitutional Law, though.

Grimscale said:

Good points.

The initial summary modifies the wording to suggest a person must get rid of their property, not that the .gov must remove from their false list three handguns they have deemed "unsafe".

It does sometimes help to actually go and read the original text.

"The Department of Justice shall, for each semiautomatic pistol newly added to the roster pursuant to Section 32015, remove from the roster exactly three semiautomatic pistols lacking one or more of the applicable features described in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) and added to the roster before July 1, 2022. "


so, yes, your summary makes more sense.

Still a tyrannical and unConstitutional Law, though.

Click to expand...

Hey not for nothing but here and in a couple other threads you really got my brain working on a Saturday morning, thanks!

Micro stamping, hmm Freudian slip with so many females in office, ever see that little man in the boat?

Edwardteach72 said:

What???? Who's talking about someone's property??

Click to expand...

We've covered this. Try to keep up.