CA Lawsuit Filed Over Gun Roster

[terraformer]

Terra, sorry I wish you were correct. NO ruling in a CA Court holds any water in a MA Court! Not even an Appellate ruling in the 9th Ckt (Fed). Every Fed Ckt Court is their own "island" and that is why the USSC sometimes opts to take a case that has had contrary rulings in different circuits.

A ruling in CA would certainly help any further legal action in MA, but it certainly doesn't automatically change anything in MA.

Cases do get heard by the SCOTUS on occasion... I never meant a CA state case would be directly helpful. These will get heard in federal court. And in fact, I believe most of the goods ones are already in federal court.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

OK now that I have reread your earlier post I understand what you meant.

We call it a PPT as its between two private parties and did not involve a dealer selling it.

I can see that a Mass PPT is a lot different than ours.

California law also defines a PPT in the Penal Code.
http://thegunwiki.com/Gunwiki/LegalCaPpt

Below is a bit about our PPT.
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dlrfaqs.php#18G

What fees can I charge for handling a Private Party Transfer (PPT)?
If the transaction is a PPT, you are restricted to charging no more than $25.00 in State fees described and $10.00 per firearm for conducting the PPT. For example:

For a PPT involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees are $35.00 for the first handgun, and $31.00 for each subsequent handgun.
For PPTs involving one or more long guns, the State fees are limited to $25.00 for the whole transaction plus $10.00 dealer fee per firearm transferred.
(PC section 12082)

I agree its not a FTF transaction to us as we can only do those in a very limited circumstances IE a long gun over 50 years old is exempt in my understanding of the laws here.

SAS, I think we are splitting hairs, but "I" don't consider it a "private transaction" (or FTF) if an FFL is involved. I was aware of what you stated and that is why I stated it the way I did. In New England I doubt many would consider it a "private sale" if an FFL had to be involved. But you do have a "leg up" in bypassing the CA Roster on these type transactions . . . in MA folks are sunk if they have to involve an FFL and can't PROVE that the gun was registered in MA pre-10/21/1998 (unless it is on the MA List).

Terra, sorry I wish you were correct. NO ruling in a CA Court holds any water in a MA Court! Not even an Appellate ruling in the 9th Ckt (Fed). Every Fed Ckt Court is their own "island" and that is why the USSC sometimes opts to take a case that has had contrary rulings in different circuits.

A ruling in CA would certainly help any further legal action in MA, but it certainly doesn't automatically change anything in MA.

 

[ivanimal]

From what I understand you can send funds in any form to the Calguns foundation. Tell them SAS sent ya.
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/

BTW It was my idea for the group thats known as the calguns foundation to become a foundation and not just be a 501C3 tax exempt org.

That I will take credit for.

BTW2 This is the crap that we in California have to put up with.
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

I am the Ivan Peña named in the case, I am also a board member and founding member of the calguns foundation. We do have to put up with a lot of crap. We don't have to take it. There are great minds working on this ( I am among them (not really one of them) its amazing how much airtime we are getting from this and other forums and news sources. Its about time we take the fight to them. Our fights and rights are similar. I joined this forum a while ago to show solidarity. I found you again by googling our lawsuit. It is important to us to win this case and others so that the great state of Massachusetts never has to deal with the same kind of draconian laws.

Sam I am not sure what you are taking credit for. You have had some great ideas in the past. I don't recall you being involved in this one. But then again I am only one of nine board members.

 

[terraformer]

Sam I am not sure what you are taking credit for. You have had some great ideas in the past. I don't recall you being involved in this one. But then again I am only one of nine board members.

Don't worry, we don't believe his BS anyway.

Good luck with the lawsuit. We are all pulling for you.

 

[dagwag77]

Cases do get heard by the SCOTUS on occasion... I never meant a CA state case would be directly helpful. These will get heard in federal court. And in fact, I believe most of the goods ones are already in federal court.

Also doesn't mean these asshats will listen to a supreme ct decision. At least until they get sued a few times for breaching the court's decision......

 

[SemiAutoSam]

Ivan In the thread below I suggested forming a Foundation when Gene Hoffman was thinking about creating only a 501C3 tax exempt organization.

To skip ahead its post 15 of this thread.

01-28-2008, 09:06 PM
SemiAutoSam
Banned Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Volksrepublic Kalifornien 人民共和国加州
Posts: 9,201
iTrader: 33 / 100%



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gene

How about a Private Foundation instead of a 501C3

Or a 508 You could preach about gun law's and History and we could all be your parishioners.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=84422
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-84422.html

I am the Ivan Peña named in the case, I am also a board member and founding member of the calguns foundation. We do have to put up with a lot of crap. We don't have to take it. There are great minds working on this ( I am among them (not really one of them) its amazing how much airtime we are getting from this and other forums and news sources. Its about time we take the fight to them. Our fights and rights are similar. I joined this forum a while ago to show solidarity. I found you again by googling our lawsuit. It is important to us to win this case and others so that the great state of Massachusetts never has to deal with the same kind of draconian laws.

Sam I am not sure what you are taking credit for. You have had some great ideas in the past. I don't recall you being involved in this one. But then again I am only one of nine board members.

 

[ivanimal]

Ivan In the thread below I suggested forming a Foundation when Gene Hoffman was thinking about creating only a 501C3 tax exempt organization.

To skip ahead its post 15 of this thread.




http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=84422
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-84422.html

I see where you and a few others suggested that. Can you really take credit for something that was created completely by others?

 

[SemiAutoSam]

Ivan
I take credit for the "IDEA" of the Foundations creation, I didn't say that I did any of the work to create it.

At the time of that post on CGN IMO Gene was only considering creating a 501C3.

So at the time it wasn't being considered as an option from what I read in that thread and others.

And since my suggestion of using a Foundation was the first I have seen yes I take credit for the idea of Gene proceeding in that direction.

I also spoke to Gene on the telephone and let him know that grants could be had as well.

I have some knowledge in this area from a Local Law Study group that I belong to.

I see where you and a few others suggested that. Can you really take credit for something that was created completely by others?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Well, this thread hasn't kept up.

This case was stayed while the courts worked out McDonald and a few other issues. It was re-briefed after California enacted a micro stamping requirement and yesterday we got the (not very good) decision. This is a shockingly bad decision. SAF & CGF have already filed a notice of appeal.

The court finds plaintiffs’ “nsistence upon . . .particular” handguns to “fall outside the scope of the right to bear arms

The court also rejects plaintiffs’ contention that “particular unrostered handguns are constitutionally-protected [sic] . . . .” The Second Amendment does not protect guns, but rather conduct.

The UHA is “one of the ‘presumptively lawful regulatory measures’ identified in Heller” and, as such, “falls outside the historical scope” of the Second Amendment

 

[terraformer]

Not yesterday. This all happened today.

 

[92G]

amazing.

If Toyotas and Reeboks were banned from a state, the sheeple would wail themselves to sleep yelling "infringement!"

 

[fishgutzy]

The 9th will just tell him to buy an approved FNH FNS9 or H&K VP9 since they are ambidextrous
Then the plaintiff can get the 9th overturned again. '
However, if they win at the 9th, you can bet that MA and New Governors will beg California not to appeal. They don't want a ruling that outlaws the MA or NY laws.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Not yesterday. This all happened today.

The decision is dated yesterday.

 

[LittleCalm]

Court's reasoning seems deeply flawed. Why is the burden on the plaintiff? Seems the state must prove under strict scrutiny standard why it is denying the plaintiff's right to access guns commonly in use. These rosters, like MA, are arbitrary restrictions and cannot pass even intermediate scrutiny.

 

[xtry51]

Well, it's certanly an interesting one to keep track of with that nonsense of a decision.

 

[Palladin]

Nuts

 

[xero2099]

Well if it was easy...

 

[jar]

Well if it was easy...

Onward and upward. This case was going to the 9th either way, at least we're done waiting.

 

[oppressed]

two bothersome things that I got from quickly scanning that decision.

1. that as long as you can get A handgun, it is ok to restrict which ones you can get. you can't get the one you want, because there are almost 1000 others you can have. what if they were to restrict the field to only exactly one and only one approved gun. ... but hey, you can still technically have a handgun. wtf?

what do microstamping and paying a fee to list have to do with safety?

2. and that in the heller decision, the second amendment's "core purpose" was specifically for self-defense. the actual wording specifies "for the security of a free state", not hunting, not self-defense.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This is a long term battle, and we will have losses that absolutely seem to defy logic (like the district court decision that the Village Vault is not a "state actor" (currently being appealed)). These sort of cases challenge governmental authority and established public policy, and many judges just plain don't like what our side stands for - and will be guided by such a belief rather than by logic and the law.

 

[ivanimal]

We have already filed an appeal.

 

[terraformer]

The decision is dated yesterday.

Judge finished writing it that day. The docket was labeled the 26th.