TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:

Lena wrote:no provisions for already owned ?

And what's worse, IIRC all the "assault rifles" that are at the moment legally owned are registered with the state government. They know who has them.

If I were a gunowner in the Peoples' Republic, I would be figuring out a way to show my guns had left the state.

Or just take my guns and leave the state all together.

This makes all semi-auto rifles such as the 742 Remington, Model 100 Winchester, Browning BAR illegal as well as many others. I can't imagine this will not be defeated when challenged in courts.

ELB wrote:

Lena wrote:no provisions for already owned ?

And what's worse, IIRC all the "assault rifles" that are at the moment legally owned are registered with the state government. They know who has them.

If I were a gunowner in the Peoples' Republic, I would be figuring out a way to show my guns had left the state.

Ease of confiscation is the whole point of registration

ELB wrote:

Lena wrote:no provisions for already owned ?

And what's worse, IIRC all the "assault rifles" that are at the moment legally owned are registered with the state government. They know who has them.

If I were a gunowner in the Peoples' Republic, I would be figuring out a way to show my guns had left the state.

I wonder about the logistics and legality of offering a gun storage business in a place like Nevada for those who are subject to these unconstitutional laws in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. Nevada is driving distance from LA, so people wouldn't even have to ship their weapons, and the business could offer regular preventive maintenance services as part of their fee.

In all honesty if possible I would leave the state.

I will be glad to take all of my brother's "banned weapons" for my own since he loves Commiefornia.

puma guy wrote:This makes all semi-auto rifles such as the 742 Remington, Model 100 Winchester, Browning BAR illegal as well as many others. I can't imagine this will not be defeated when challenged in courts.

The interesting thing will be to see how it is handled until then. I agree there would be good chance of it being defeated in the courts eventually, but what happens until then? And if they have a list of all the registered weapons, would the storage in Nevada option really be viable?

puma guy wrote:This makes all semi-auto rifles such as the 742 Remington, Model 100 Winchester, Browning BAR illegal as well as many others. I can't imagine this will not be defeated when challenged in courts.

Don't forget it will have to go through the 9th Circus Court who will rule the law is constitutional because, "ice cream has no bones".

Pawpaw wrote:

puma guy wrote:This makes all semi-auto rifles such as the 742 Remington, Model 100 Winchester, Browning BAR illegal as well as many others. I can't imagine this will not be defeated when challenged in courts.

Don't forget it will have to go through the 9th Circus Court who will rule the law is constitutional because, "ice cream has no bones".

And like I pointed out earlier in this thread, SCOTUS declined to take up the Illinois AWB case, even with Scalia still alive and on the bench. What makes you think they would take up this case?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

puma guy wrote:This makes all semi-auto rifles such as the 742 Remington, Model 100 Winchester, Browning BAR illegal as well as many others. I can't imagine this will not be defeated when challenged in courts.

Don't forget it will have to go through the 9th Circus Court who will rule the law is constitutional because, "ice cream has no bones".

And like I pointed out earlier in this thread, SCOTUS declined to take up the Illinois AWB case, even with Scalia still alive and on the bench. What makes you think they would take up this case?

I am hoping since the 4th Circuit Court struck down Maryland's AWB and High Capacity ban there may be some hope. We'll have to wait and see what happens when/if MD appeals I suppose.

puma guy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

puma guy wrote:This makes all semi-auto rifles such as the 742 Remington, Model 100 Winchester, Browning BAR illegal as well as many others. I can't imagine this will not be defeated when challenged in courts.

Don't forget it will have to go through the 9th Circus Court who will rule the law is constitutional because, "ice cream has no bones".

And like I pointed out earlier in this thread, SCOTUS declined to take up the Illinois AWB case, even with Scalia still alive and on the bench. What makes you think they would take up this case?

I am hoping since the 4th Circuit Court struck down Maryland's AWB and High Capacity ban there may be some hope. We'll have to wait and see what happens when/if MD appeals I suppose.

Since it hasn't gone to the 9th circuit yet, wouldn't the earliest the SCOTUS would make a decision on whether or not they would hear it at all come this session and then they would hear it during the next session?

Every day I have less and less of a desire to visit that state.

C-dub wrote:

puma guy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

puma guy wrote:This makes all semi-auto rifles such as the 742 Remington, Model 100 Winchester, Browning BAR illegal as well as many others. I can't imagine this will not be defeated when challenged in courts.

Don't forget it will have to go through the 9th Circus Court who will rule the law is constitutional because, "ice cream has no bones".

And like I pointed out earlier in this thread, SCOTUS declined to take up the Illinois AWB case, even with Scalia still alive and on the bench. What makes you think they would take up this case?

I am hoping since the 4th Circuit Court struck down Maryland's AWB and High Capacity ban there may be some hope. We'll have to wait and see what happens when/if MD appeals I suppose.

Since it hasn't gone to the 9th circuit yet, wouldn't the earliest the SCOTUS would make a decision on whether or not they would hear it at all come this session and then they would hear it during the next session?

I am not familiar with California legislative procedure, so perhaps TAM can provide some insight. By what I can determine the bills passed by committee votes. I don't know where the general assembly comes in, if they do at all at this point. I assume any challenges would go through the California court system first.

puma guy wrote:

C-dub wrote:

puma guy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

puma guy wrote:This makes all semi-auto rifles such as the 742 Remington, Model 100 Winchester, Browning BAR illegal as well as many others. I can't imagine this will not be defeated when challenged in courts.

Don't forget it will have to go through the 9th Circus Court who will rule the law is constitutional because, "ice cream has no bones".

And like I pointed out earlier in this thread, SCOTUS declined to take up the Illinois AWB case, even with Scalia still alive and on the bench. What makes you think they would take up this case?

I am hoping since the 4th Circuit Court struck down Maryland's AWB and High Capacity ban there may be some hope. We'll have to wait and see what happens when/if MD appeals I suppose.

Since it hasn't gone to the 9th circuit yet, wouldn't the earliest the SCOTUS would make a decision on whether or not they would hear it at all come this session and then they would hear it during the next session?

I am not familiar with California legislative procedure, so perhaps TAM can provide some insight. By what I can determine the bills passed by committee votes. I don't know where the general assembly comes in, if they do at all at this point. I assume any challenges would go through the California court system first.

The California Supreme Court is a product of the same political environment that produced these bills.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

puma guy wrote:

C-dub wrote:

puma guy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

puma guy wrote:This makes all semi-auto rifles such as the 742 Remington, Model 100 Winchester, Browning BAR illegal as well as many others. I can't imagine this will not be defeated when challenged in courts.

Don't forget it will have to go through the 9th Circus Court who will rule the law is constitutional because, "ice cream has no bones".

And like I pointed out earlier in this thread, SCOTUS declined to take up the Illinois AWB case, even with Scalia still alive and on the bench. What makes you think they would take up this case?

I am hoping since the 4th Circuit Court struck down Maryland's AWB and High Capacity ban there may be some hope. We'll have to wait and see what happens when/if MD appeals I suppose.

Since it hasn't gone to the 9th circuit yet, wouldn't the earliest the SCOTUS would make a decision on whether or not they would hear it at all come this session and then they would hear it during the next session?

I am not familiar with California legislative procedure, so perhaps TAM can provide some insight. By what I can determine the bills passed by committee votes. I don't know where the general assembly comes in, if they do at all at this point. I assume any challenges would go through the California court system first.

The California Supreme Court is a product of the same political environment that produced these bills.

I have no doubt you're correct. Just pointing out it would have to go through their system which I have no faith in either. Are the bills required to go to the general assembly for a vote after the committee?