Community for Kel-Tec Shooters banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just got the email from SAF.

FED. JUDGE RULES CAL’S ‘3-TO-1’ HANDGUN LAW PROVISION MAY VIOLATE 2A
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is applauding a ruling by a federal judge in Southern California that a provision in the state’s new handgun roster law, requiring the removal of three handguns already on the roster that can be sold, to make room for each new handgun added to the list may violate the Second Amendment.​
The ruling by U.S. District Chief Judge Dana Sabraw, is a slap at California’s law, which took effect Jan. 1 of this year. The lawsuit was brought by SAF, the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Firearms Policy Coalition and a private citizen, Lana Rae Renna, for whom the case Renna v. Becerra is named. They sued California in November. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Raymond DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C. and Michael Sousa of San Diego.​
In his 15-page ruling, Judge Sabraw, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that plaintiffs “have sufficiently pled the UHA (“Unsafe Handgun Act”) substantially impacts their Second Amendment rights and thus burdens conduct protected by the Amendment.”​
The judge also observed that the defendants offered “no justification for why the statute requires the removal of three handguns for each new handgun added (to the roster), instead of, for instance, a proportional one-to-one.”​
He also noted, “Plaintiffs allege the UHA’s roster imposes a significant burden on their Second Amendment rights. Specifically, the (complaint) alleges the number of handguns available for purchase on the roster continues to decline and ultimately will ‘shrink into oblivion’ as handguns are removed from the roster, including by AB 2847’s three-for-one provision. Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, this limits the ability of law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms, which is critical to ensuring the Second Amendment right to keep arms.”​
“This case shows California’s amended handgun law seems ultimately designed to shrink the available number of approved handguns to virtually zero,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Judge Sabraw appears to recognize this unconstitutional dilemma near the end of his opinion.”​
Weblink to story above:

SAF is kinda kill'n it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Electroshot

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
Why does ANY gun need to be removed from the 'approved' list at all? Nothing changes about those guns to warrant their removal, when another gun is simply added to the list.

Idiots and their games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Yeah, there is no way someone can look at that not see it is a gun elimination plan.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,388 Posts
Again, as always, the goal is not safety for these laws but taking the guns away from society. The left hates anything that isn't almost crushed under their thumb.

The microstamping law that was put in place a while back doesn't take more that a brief moment of thought to realize that any criminal with a small file can disable the microstamping in a matter of moments. This only shows how little these anti-2A politicians know about how things even work. Their ego is too large to change a law that doesn't work on its face (it was never intended to offer real criminal tracing or protection of society, but to make guns more difficult to obtain by the average Joe).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Again, as always, the goal is not safety for these laws but taking the guns away from society. The left hates anything that isn't almost crushed under their thumb.

The microstamping law that was put in place a while back doesn't take more that a brief moment of thought to realize that any criminal with a small file can disable the microstamping in a matter of moments. This only shows how little these anti-2A politicians know about how things even work. Their ego is too large to change a law that doesn't work on its face (it was never intended to offer real criminal tracing or protection of society, but to make guns more difficult to obtain by the average Joe).

Let's not turn it political here. Liberals own guns too, its extremists that are against guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CalBear92 and Psi

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
The microstamping law that was put in place a while back doesn't take more that a brief moment of thought to realize that any criminal with a small file can disable the microstamping in a matter of moments. This only shows how little these anti-2A politicians know about how things even work. Their ego is too large to change a law that doesn't work on its face (it was never intended to offer real criminal tracing or protection of society, but to make guns more difficult to obtain by the average Joe).
Or maybe they do know how it works because someone explained it to them. ...and they're just lying.


I know that the saying goes, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But I don't think what we see can actually be adequately explained by stupidity. They're not that stupid, and they have advisors who know how these things work.

It's not a "well intentioned mistake." It's malice and they're deliberately lying.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
32,094 Posts
An off-topic post that violates the no politics rule was removed. If you want to discuss political parties take it elsewhere. Consider this fair warning.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Kel-Tec Forum mobile app
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top