California Declares Preventing Lawful Ammo Purchases Is the Goal

Well it's true. It is working exactly how it is intended. Denying a Vietnam Vet & Retired CHP Officer a box of shotgun shells is cause for celebration among these Freedom Thieves. It's also the story they want to get out more than any other story. This story is what they don't want to get out, "The law is working, it is stopping felons from purchasing ammunition". Number one, most felons can get their mixed batch of ammo elsewhere, Number two, it does not target law abiding citizens, which is who they really want to target.

Anyway... California has bigger problems... hopefully the normal people that live their can eventually escape.
 
Around 99% of those denials were false positives.
Click to expand...

That means that around 1% of the denials were VALID. That means the law is working as intended. If it stops even one bullet from getting in the wrong hands, it is working as intended.

How the inefficiency of the system (99% false positives) affects people is a DIFFERERENT matter, and not one they are much concerned about.

Until we get a judge who says otherwise....

When they say its working as intended, they aren't, technically, lying. They just aren't telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as we see it.

Would be interesting to see what the results would be if one of them made that statement under oath in a court of law, instead of on the media in the court of public opinion...
 
The thing is, in theory at least, a constitutionally protected right can’t be burdened unless there is both a compelling state interest in the restriction and the restriction is tailored to the minimum necessary to achieve the goal.* Rejecting 1 in 5 of every ammo purchase with a 99% false positive rate doesn’t even start to pass that test.

I think that between the last couple of years of judicial appointments and the increasing aggresiveness of gun control proponents, we may be looking at some solid 2A rulings in the next 10 years.

* I’m summarizing my vague memory of Con Law from many years ago without actually taking the time to look it up.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The thing is, in theory at least, a constitutionally protected right can’t be burdened unless there is both a compelling state interest in the restriction and the restriction is tailored to the minimum necessary to achieve the goal.* . . . .

* I’m summarizing my vague memory of Con Law from many years ago without actually taking the time to look it up.
Click to expand...
A quick Constitutional Scrutiny summary:
  1. Rational Basis: There has to be a rational basis for a law covering something in which the gov't has some legitimate interest.
  2. Intermediate Basis: There has to be an important gov't interest and a substantial relationship between a law and that interest.
  3. Strict Scrutiny: There has to be a compelling gov't interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to that interest.

A good, simple post on this is here: https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-laws-3-levels-of-scrutiny-explained.html
 
Should be interesting to see how the Ninth Circuit applies its 2A Two-Step “intermediate scrutiny” to this law.

1. Does it burden the core right of keeping a registered .22 revolver in the home?
2. If so, apply “heightened scrutiny” that’s basically almost rational basis.
 
What happened to "shall not be infringed" ? We keep loosing more and more and I don't see us winning many cases. When is it all going to end ?
 
On a personal note, it ends when you do.

Otherwise, no, it never ends. there is always a wolf at the door that must be guarded against. Or an enemy at the gate, though they may wear the same clothes you do...

For the truly cynical it boils down to this, if there are no guns (and of course the ammo to feed them) in the hands of those who might oppose their wishes, then no guns can be used against them. And, do note they don't do much to take the guns from the hands of the people who WORK for them....

For those who are just misguided, they see the harm that "guns" cause (ignoring the people who are pulling the triggers) and feel if they get rid of guns, it will get rid of harm.

Ask the city fathers of Carthage about that....oh, wait, sorry, you can't, they were put to the sword....
 
"Anyway... California has bigger problems... hopefully the normal people that live their can eventually escape."

My question is, Why should they have to escape?. Why can't they stay and fight their repressive state government? Same goes to those fleeing the Southern Continent.

Why should we who live in communities that respect peoples rights and property be burdened by those that will bring their corrupted, diseased thinking with them? All one need do is look to Red Texas and Red Colorado and see that they are now turning Purple from all the Transients relocating from the Left Coast.
 
The thing is, in theory at least, a constitutionally protected right can’t be burdened unless there is both a compelling state interest in the restriction and the restriction is tailored to the minimum necessary to achieve the goal.
Click to expand...

Their thinking runs this way:

OK, fine. The stupid Supreme Court said you have a right to own a gun. They were wrong and we hate it, but I guess we're stuck with it.
BUT, they didn't say the ammo was protected, so we'll go after that.
Click to expand...

Thing is, if we look at restricting ammunition, an analogy could be drawn to the unsuccessful attempts to tax ink for newspapers.
 
I figure that we will eventually fall to some environmental law that will severely restrict ammunition and places where you can use it
 
rickyrick said:
I figure that we will eventually fall to some environmental law that will severely restrict ammunition and places where you can use it
Click to expand...
Where have you been? California is leading the charge on that, too. That's why we have things like steel shot, and solid copper bullets. Lead is bad for [insert endangered animal species of choice], so ammunition containing lead must be banned.

If they keep it up, the only option we'll have left is depleted uranium.
 
kmw1954 said:
Why should we who live in communities that respect peoples rights and property be burdened by those that will bring their corrupted, diseased thinking with them?
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you move from a place because it sucks, then why make your new place into like your old place?
 
People are often unable to make complicated cause and effect connections effectively. Or, they refuse to accept some connections based on ideological considerations.

They move away from where they lived without understanding what made those places problematic. So, naturally, when they find their new homes, they set about making them just like their old homes without realizing what things they can't change without creating the same problems they just escaped.
 
their eventual goal is to disarm everyone for their own desires to rule us instead of representing us. The 2nd amendment "shall not be infringed" means nothing to them. They live in gated communities with armed guards and body guards every where they go, do you think they are going to give up their guns ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top