2A Sanctuary Movement starting to spread to other states

[P5 Guy]

https://www.floridadaily.com/mike-b...o-focus-on-climate-change-as-2020-buzz-grows/

Pinellas County Florida is sunk. Only sanctuary in St Pete will be for undocumented and climate hoaxers.

 

[bdickens]

the courts have already decided that a permit to carry a revolver meets the requirements for the RKBA....

"The courts, " huh? Just what are "the courts?"

"The courts " is pretty broad. There are a whole lot of them, they are all different and they have decided a whole lot of different things, sometimes conflicting with one another.

 

[FROGO207]

If we could get every LGS to put up a sign in their store and/or on line presence reminding all 2A voters to actually take the time to go vote, and remind like minded individuals to do it this year as well it might turn the tide in our favor in a big way. This election cycle is too big to ignore for 2A rights reasons. It means 4 more years of appointing fair and reasonable judges to our courts. This will be the touchdown for 2A rights securing the win IMHO.

 

[taliv]

Every election since 92 has been like that.

the challenge is when every election for the past 30 years and next 30 years is critical, people on both sides gas out at times.

our biggest problem is that when the other side gassed out we never moved the ball forward.

we’ve had some major wins at the state and local level with the ccw push. And some wins at the court. But we need to get rid of nutty laws like SBR and suppressor restrictions. And import restrictions.

and especially take this opportunity to move away from “sporting purposes” to defending against tyranny and oppression.

 

[danez71]

11/21/19: "Counties in Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Arizona, and Texas became part of a growing 'Second Amendment sanctuary' movement this month" - https://reason.com/2019/11/21/americas-second-amendment-sanctuary-movement-is-alive-and-well/

Don't forget Needles CA did it back in July

https://www.google.com/amp/s/calmat...ifornia-2nd-amendment-arizona-nevada-law/amp/

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Every election since 92 has been like that.

the challenge is when every election for the past 30 years and next 30 years is critical, people on both sides gas out at times.

This right here. This is it. It's the cry wolf syndrome. I've been hearing about Democrats coming for my gun for literally my entire life. It gets tiresome after a while. I can't believe the Supreme Court has shirked its duty all these decades and not simply decided the matter once and for all.

 

[JERRY]

"The courts, " huh? Just what are "the courts?"

"The courts " is pretty broad. There are a whole lot of them, they are all different and they have decided a whole lot of different things, sometimes conflicting with one another.

the SCOTUS has not ruled definitively on the 2nd amendment which is why states like NJ can do what they want. Va. is in line for such restrictions now.

 

[LiveLife]

the SCOTUS has not ruled definitively on the 2nd amendment which is why states like NJ can do what they want. Va. is in line for such restrictions now.

And like DC v Heller, state laws can be overturned by SCOTUS rulings as stated by justice Gorsuch, SCOTUS is the enforcement behind the Bill of Rights, the final word for "We the People" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

"Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job"

And in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers.

And Judge Benitez stated in Duncan v Becerra that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" and in "common use" and referenced Fyock v Sunnyvale which also stated large capacity magazines (15+ rounds per federal definition) qualify as "arms for purposes of the Second Amendment" and in "common use" and that the CA restriction of 10 rounds was "arbitrary" that cause "lethal pause" for the citizens in defending their lives and ruled with judgement that magazine restrictions unconstitutional.

I am looking forward to "Originalist" SCOTUS justices approach gun rights/2A cases waiting to be heard ... We may be in for a surprise. And justice Ginsburg? She supports originalist justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for their impeccable reasoning. https://www.yahoo.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-praises-brett-165809998.html

 

[BSA1]

This right here. This is it. It's the cry wolf syndrome. I've been hearing about Democrats coming for my gun for literally my entire life. It gets tiresome after a while. I can't believe the Supreme Court has shirked its duty all these decades and not simply decided the matter once and for all.

Except this time ALL of Democrat candidates have made gun control the major issue of their campaigns. With the Democrats in solid control of the House and the razor thin margin of Republicans in the Senate it will not take many RINO’s to pass gun restrictions. For example I am having a lot with problems with Jerry Moran.

Virginia is going to be a test case in 2020 to see how committed they are to passing gun laws.

 

[LiveLife]

Virginia is going to be a test case in 2020 to see how committed they are to passing gun laws.

And could be the flash point where history for gun rights/2A is made.

 

[JERRY]

And like DC v Heller, state laws can be overturned by SCOTUS rulings as stated by justice Gorsuch, SCOTUS is the enforcement behind the Bill of Rights, the final word for "We the People" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

"Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job"

And in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers.

And Judge Benitez stated in Duncan v Becerra that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" and in "common use" and referenced Fyock v Sunnyvale which also stated large capacity magazines (15+ rounds per federal definition) qualify as "arms for purposes of the Second Amendment" and in "common use" and that the CA restriction of 10 rounds was "arbitrary" that cause "lethal pause" for the citizens in defending their lives and ruled with judgement that magazine restrictions unconstitutional.

I am looking forward to "Originalist" SCOTUS justices approach gun rights/2A cases waiting to be heard ... We may be in for a surprise. And justice Ginsburg? She supports originalist justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for their impeccable reasoning.

if all that means anything, why are there STILL magazine, gun, and ammo restrictions? hollow points in NJ are restricted, AR15s in Ct. are restricted, NY and Ca. both have magazine capacity restrictions....

 

[BSA1]

That only worked for two reasons. 1.) There were a LOT more armed men at the Bundy ranch than there were at Ruby Ridge, and, 2.) the government (ultimately, the president) backed down. That easily could have gone the other way, with thousands of troops and APCs crushing that little rebellion, not unlike President George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion...

I'll say this much: As much as I love to tell my country's story. As much as I've studied history. I'm afraid of where this is leading.

The Federal Government got away with Ruby Ridge and Waco because with the help of the willing media they controlled the information that was released in the news.

The computer, the Internet and cellphone technologies have changed the Information Age since then. The Feds backed down with Bundy because they found themselves surrounded both inside and out by angry well armed and informed people.

One of my favorite photos from the Bundy standoff was of a Police sniper laying partially concealed on the ground with his rifle and equipment presumably aiming at the ranch house.

Just a few feet from him was a lady sitting comfortably in a lawn chair with a big brightly colored beach umbrella shading her. She had a radio to listen to and something to drink. I suspect that also not very far away were some armed citizens keeping a close eye on the sniper.

I took a lot of training with the FBI since then so I have first hand information how much the Feds screwed up Ruby Ridge and Waco.

 

[LiveLife]

if all that means anything, why are there STILL magazine, gun, and ammo restrictions?

Because SCOTUS has refused to hear gun rights/2A cases in past years.

Ca. ... have magazine capacity restrictions

No, in March of 2019, judge Benitez overturned the CA magazine restriction and ruled with judgement to legalize all capacity magazines. We are waiting on 9th Circuit on a stay. CA gun owners are currently enjoying our legal larger than 10 round capacity magazines legalized by judge Benitez https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-2#post-11098192

And president Trump just appointed 10th judge to 9th Circuit possibly turning future panels conservative pro gun/2A - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tw...firmed-over-objections-of-california-senators

Stay tuned.

 

[LiveLife]

11/21/19: "Counties in Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Arizona, and Texas became part of a growing 'Second Amendment sanctuary' movement this month" - https://reason.com/2019/11/21/americas-second-amendment-sanctuary-movement-is-alive-and-well/

West Milford became first “sanctuary township" in New Jersey.

N.J. town declares itself a sanctuary for 2nd Amendment. "We’re gun-friendly" - https://www.nj.com/passaic-county/2...res-itself-a-sanctuary-for-2nd-amendment.html

 

[JERRY]

West Milford became first “sanctuary township" in New Jersey.

N.J. town declares itself a sanctuary for 2nd Amendment. "We’re gun-friendly" - https://www.nj.com/passaic-county/2...res-itself-a-sanctuary-for-2nd-amendment.html

so the average Joe can get a ccw permit there? carry hollow point ammo in his ccw gun?

 

[JERRY]

Because SCOTUS has refused to hear gun rights/2A cases in past years.


No, in March of 2019, judge Benitez overturned the CA magazine restriction and ruled with judgement to legalize all capacity magazines. We are waiting on 9th Circuit on a stay. CA gun owners are currently enjoying our legal larger than 10 round capacity magazines legalized by judge Benitez while waiting to hear from the 9th Circuit. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-2#post-11098192

And president Trump just appointed 10th judge to 9th Circuit possibly turning future panels conservative pro gun/2A - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tw...firmed-over-objections-of-california-senators

Stay tuned.

so far you've pointed out fighting court cases but not one that was overturned in the locales I mentioned.

 

[LiveLife]

so far you've pointed out fighting court cases but not one that was overturned in the locales I mentioned.

Wow, read carefully.

In March of this year for Duncan v Becerra, judge Benitez ruled with judgement and LEGALIZED millions of banned magazines and magazine kits along with newly manufactured magazines immediately following the ruling (hence the "judgement" part).

His decision overturned CA laws and millions of higher capacity than 10 round magazines (Whether they were in CA before the ruling or imported after the ruling) are NOW LEGAL.

CA state asked for a stay following week which was granted but the now LEGALIZED magazines REMAIN LEGAL as we wait for 9th Circuit appeal. A win for CA gun owners who currently can enjoy higher capacity than 10 round magazines everyday.

So the fact is millions of banned/illegal magazines and magazine kits BECAME LEGAL which were illegal under overturned CA laws and currently REMAIN LEGAL.

What don't you get?

BTW, judge Benitez ruling - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

"... California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety"

 

[JERRY]

Wow, read carefully.

In March of this year for Duncan v Becerra, judge Benitez ruled with judgement and LEGALIZED millions of banned magazines and magazine kits along with newly manufactured magazines immediately following the ruling (hence the "judgement" part).

His decision overturned CA laws and millions of higher capacity than 10 round magazines (Whether they were in CA before the ruling or imported after the ruling) are NOW LEGAL.

The CA state asked for a stay following week which was granted but the now LEGALIZED magazines REMAIN LEGAL as we wait for 9th Circuit appeal. A total win for CA gun owners.

So the fact is millions of banned/illegal magazines and magazine kits BECAME LEGAL which were illegal under overturned CA laws.

What don't you get?

I guess you and I have a different idea of what a stay means when a court renders a decision. the previous "illegal" magazines are not legal now, they are in limbo until a higher court decides. all the lower court [and state] did was cause the case to be pushed up to a higher court, nothing was overturned in reality unless the higher court refuses to hear the case. any lawyers care to chime in?

 

[LiveLife]

the previous "illegal" magazines are not legal now

You are wrong.

ALL banned/illegal magazines and kits that existed inside CA prior to the ruling with judgement BECAME LEGAL immediately following the ruling along with newly manufactured and imported all capacity magazines.

ALL capacity magazines in possession/purchased before the stay was granted (4/5/19) REMAIN LEGAL even now.

After the stay was granted, new purchase/manufacture/importation of larger than 10 round capacity magazine became ILLEGAL as we wait for 9th Circuit appeal, but the LEGALIZED all capacity magazines REMAIN legal for gun owners who possessed/purchased before the stay date.

And CA currently does not prohibit the USE of lawfully acquired larger capacity than 10 round magazines.

any lawyers care to chime in?

CRPA legal team clarified this in detail in this post - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-4#post-11102503

"II. CAN I CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED?
YES!

III. CAN I USE THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED AT A SHOOTING RANGE?
YES! For the same reasons above, California does not currently prohibit the “possession” of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Only activities involving the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of such magazines are prohibited. The mere “use” of a magazine at a shooting range, for example, is not specifically prohibited.

IV. CAN I CARRY THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED WITH A FIREARM PURSUANT TO A CARRY LICENSE?
YES, but your local licensing authority’s policies may still restrict such activity (Same "no gun" areas prior to ruling). As noted above, California law does not prohibit the “use” of any “large-capacity” magazine."

 

[Walkalong]

This right here. This is it. It's the cry wolf syndrome. I've been hearing about Democrats coming for my gun for literally my entire life. It gets tiresome after a while.

While it does get tiresome, it isn't crying wolf, because they have, they just haven't fully succeeded. If we don't keep voting antis out and pro 2nd in one of these cycles they will take them. We got lucky on the sunset clause, won't happen again, they just did miss during the Obama administration. They'll try again. The fight against the antis will never be over, and most of the antis are Democrats, it's just a fact. Don't like it? Vote for pro 2nd Democrats.

 

[Trey Veston]

Except this time ALL of Democrat candidates have made gun control the major issue of their campaigns. With the Democrats in solid control of the House and the razor thin margin of Republicans in the Senate it will not take many RINO’s to pass gun restrictions. For example I am having a lot with problems with Jerry Moran.

Virginia is going to be a test case in 2020 to see how committed they are to passing gun laws.

Not to mention that if you listen to any conservative talk show host the past couple of years, they have all pointed out how the Democratic party has been monopolized by the far left wing of the party. They are being led by the nose by the extreme faction and they vote the party line without fail. It's called polarization, and the left has embraced it to new heights.

During the Democratic Presidential debates, one of them said that AR-15s should be banned and confiscated and the rest of them agreed. No dissent, no discussion, no consideration of the Constitution. It is truly frightening to see how fast and how radical the Democrats have become in regards to gun control and governmental power.

 

[JERRY]

You are wrong.

ALL banned/illegal magazines and kits that existed inside CA prior to the ruling with judgement BECAME LEGAL immediately following the ruling along with newly manufactured and imported all capacity magazines.

ALL capacity magazines in possession/purchased before the stay was granted (4/5/19) REMAIN LEGAL even now.

After the stay was granted, new purchase/manufacture/importation of larger than 10 round capacity magazine became ILLEGAL as we wait for 9th Circuit appeal, but the LEGALIZED all capacity magazines REMAIN legal for gun owners who possessed/purchased before the stay date.

And CA currently does not prohibit the USE of lawfully acquired larger capacity than 10 round magazines.


CRPA legal team clarified this in detail in this post - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-4#post-11102503

"II. CAN I CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED?
YES!

III. CAN I USE THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED AT A SHOOTING RANGE?
YES! For the same reasons above, California does not currently prohibit the “possession” of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Only activities involving the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of such magazines are prohibited. The mere “use” of a magazine at a shooting range, for example, is not specifically prohibited.

IV. CAN I CARRY THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED WITH A FIREARM PURSUANT TO A CARRY LICENSE?
YES, but your local licensing authority’s policies may still restrict such activity (Same "no gun" areas prior to ruling). As noted above, California law does not prohibit the “use” of any “large-capacity” magazine."

aren't those the grandfathered magazines that were possessed prior to them being made illegal?

 

[LiveLife]

aren't those the grandfathered magazines that were possessed prior to them being made illegal?

No, since judge Benitez overturned CA laws with his ruling and judgement, all the grandfathered magazines, newly manufactured magazines (including magazine "kits" that were assembled), newly imported magazines etc. became legal, regardless of capacity.

So until the stay was granted by judge Benitez, all capacity magazines became legal and possession of these magazines after the stay remains legal.

 

[JERRY]

No, since judge Benitez overturned CA laws with his ruling and judgement, all the grandfathered magazines, newly manufactured magazines (including magazine "kits" that were assembled), newly imported magazines etc. became legal, regardless of capacity.

So until the stay was granted by judge Benitez, all capacity magazines became legal and possession of these magazines after the stay remains legal.

ok, I understand now. the grandfathered standard magazines are still legal to possess but still only by the original owner, the standard capacity magazines bought immediately after the lower court ruling are legal to posses, but now are treated the same as the previous grandfathered magazines. and new standard capacity magazines or transfer of grandfathered magazines are still illegal. as in today, right now, you cannot go out and guy a 17 round Glock G17 magazine.

 

[LiveLife]

ok, I understand now. the grandfathered standard magazines are still legal to possess but still only by the original owner

No. After judge Benitez ruled, these "grandfathered" magazines didn't need to be with the original owners as they could be sold/transferred. Since the ruling, I am quite sure many of these "grandfathered" magazines changed ownership.

And no, judge Benitez's ruling did not include "grandfathering". He legalized all capacity magazines as he deemed them "arms" under the protection of the Second Amendment allowing sales/transfer from the original owner.

As we wait to be heard by 9th Circuit, possession of larger than 10 round capacity magazines remain legal and if 9th Circuit does not rule for the gun owners, then the case goes to the SCOTUS. I believe our odds look pretty good right now with 9th Circuit increasingly becoming pro gun/2A.