Sue California after the Heller decision?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

maestro pistolero

New member
I know, I'm optimistic. But I believe denying any arms, that are in common use, to the citizens of California is an infringement. If they are so unsafe, then why isn't it illegal for law enforcement to buy them, and have them for their own private and public use?

Having lived in Nevada for the past 7 years, I am appalled to learn what has happened with the gun laws in California.

One example:
Whether or not to have a gun with a magazine disconnect used to be something a person would weigh for themselves when deciding what gun to use to defend themselves and their families. Now California makes that decision for you. What?

Entire classes of quality firearms are eliminated from the shelves due to unreasonable or unaffordable restrictions or demand upon the manufacturers.

I hope the U.S. Supreme court renders a bold and unequivocal decision that clears the way for legal action against rogue states like California, New York, and Massachusetts.
 
If Heller goes well for the pro-2nd amendment crowd... then yes, lawsuits all over the country should take place.

Of course, I am not counting any chickens before they hatch.
 
Few and far between

I susspect it will require deeeep pockets for chalenges. Thats what lawmakers count on when passing odd or unconstitutional edicts.
 
They will leave some wiggle room for the commie states, that much is certain. "Optimistic" is a pretty mild description of any plan to sue CA into changing.
 
If you're not already, get in touch with the Golden State Second Amendment Council. One of its founders is attorney Don Kilmer, who's been fighting the Alameda County gun show ban for years on behalf of his clients Russ & Sally Nordyke. There's even been a US Supreme Court appeal in the case.

You can absolutely, 100% count on dead to rights that when Heller comes down with an individual rights ruling, it will not only be a watershed moment for Don Kilmer in the Nordyke case, but will mark the beginning of the legal battle to restore firearms freedom in California with Don and other staunchly pro-gun attorneys leading the way.
 
maestro pistolero: Having lived in Nevada for the past 7 years, I am appalled to learn what has happened with the gun laws in California.
Click to expand...
You don’t know how true these words are.

I lived in the PRK from ’76 to ’84. They are real big on ballot propositions there. Around 1980 one of the anti-gun groups got a proposition on the ballot to eliminate handgun ownership in the state. They were going to show everyone how the people really felt. Well, they by-God showed ‘em alright! It went down by a 3 to 1 margin! The anti-‘s nearly died when the results came in. I didn’t hear any anti-gun talk up to the time we left in late ’84.

Every gun owner in the state must have mobilized on that one. I, myself, passed out literature, hung posters, and knocked on a LOT of doors.

Look where they are now! It’s only been a little over twenty years. And any of us could find ourselves in the same position. I certainly include ‘gun friendly’ Texas in this as well. With our exploding wet-back “we’ll vote for anything Democrat” population we could be there in far less than twenty years! Complacency and self-interest (I don’t care about those guns! I only use shotguns.) are going to bring us all down if we aren’t very careful.
 
And to think I held a CCW permit there until I left. I'm not sure I can even enter the State now with the Sig P228 that I used to have on my license. It's got 13 RND mags, oh, the horror.

Just outrageous.
 
The problem is that the people who absolutely couldn't tolerate it left because that was easier...and that was the plan all along. The anti gun movement in CA isn't about guns, it's about kicking out gun owners because the Donkey party doesn't like having elections with us around. With constitutionally endorsed gerrymandering from hell it's made it a one party state in a one way march right down the toilet--the best opposition from the NRA (and it is monumental...) keeps 99% of the absolutely horrid stuff from passing...but the 1% that does get through is enough to make it as miserable as it is.
 
If we get a favorable and clear decision then they can take all their disdain for the second amendment and marinate in it for all eternity.

If they don't like the amendment let them try to change it. That's a tougher road than anything we've ever seen on our side.
 
Tough for them? Hell no it isn't! CA's powers that be have had exactly zero trouble doing whatever they like in completely ignoring the 2nd Amendment. They don't need to change it to get what they want. Hickman v Black did all they need...that along with gerrymandering and a complete lack of revolt by the people gives them all the confidence in the world that they can do as they please without any fear of consequences or retaliation. The most they have gotten is merely a setback in their timetable, not jail time and/or exile for treason which they deserve.
 
I repeat: they don't have to repeal it, they ruled it null and void in the state of California via the decision in Hickman v Block, a 9th Circus Court ruling. Since then the gates of hell have been flung wide open. The people who ruled on it should be disbarred and evicted for doing so, but instead it has become gospel.
 
With our exploding wet-back “we’ll vote for anything Democrat” population we could be there in far less than twenty years! Complacency and self-interest (I don’t care about those guns! I only use shotguns.) are going to bring us all down if we aren’t very careful.
Click to expand...

Elza, I'm sure that Hispanic voters are really going to respond well to racial slurs from Republicans. Clean up your language.
 
It may be generic, but I've only heard it used in derogatory reference to Hispanics, particularly Mexicans. It's still inappropriate to use that term here IMHO.
 
It may be generic, but I've only heard it used in derogatory reference to Hispanics, particularly Mexicans. It's still inappropriate to use that term here IMHO.
Click to expand...
It can be equally degrading to scuba divers, competitive swimmers, commercial fishermen, surfers, and raingear designers too, ya know. What's really degrading is calling anyone a Donkey party voter. I'd rather be associated with the scrapings of a sewer filtration system than that. The Hispanics can live with being called by the hydrated term.

Whatever happened to what we were taught as kids "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? This PC crap about people's right to be "offended" is for the birds.
 
Last edited:
ConfuseUs: Elza, I'm sure that Hispanic voters are really going to respond well to racial slurs from Republicans.
Click to expand...
Well, I could apologize for offending your sensibilities but I would be lying so I won’t bother. The term is generic in reference to people here illegally.

Why, pray tell, should they be voting? If they are illegal they shouldn’t even be here much less voting.

Clean up your language.
Click to expand...
Give orders much?
 
I do not think any lawsuits should be needed. If the court declares the 2A to be an individual right, then I think any outright bans should be immediately stop being enforced.

I am sure the decision will allow for "reasonable restrictions" but any law that goes beyond these restrictions (which I hope are clearly spelled out at the very least) should be immediately declared non-constitutional and therefore null and void.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top