AWB and California

[odysseus]

Also...

change people's perception of AR rifles. It is not an "Assault Rifle". It is an Automatic Rifle, and mostly semi-auto at best for non-licensed individuals.

"Assault" is how someone uses it, and the liberal press and misinformed politico's seem to love to use it to make them "evil". It's a rifle. Keep the truth close and help others understand it.

 

[pittspilot]

"The preceeding from here..... http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

It seems to me that the current Ca. AWB treats differently two shooters on the same shooting line holding the same weapon depending on which state issued their Drivers license.

Additionally, the fact that has a Ca. Drivers license in their pocket means that that law will treat them differently WRT to what wepons they might buy and keep out of state."

Carnitas,

All laws discriminate to a degree. Against criminals, vagrancy, alcoholics, addicts, whatever.

Thus, the Equal Protection Clause sets forth levels of scrutiny according to the type of discrimination being practiced.

If the discrimination is being practiced against someone solely because of Race, or Alienage, then the court will apply strict scrutiny, and generally find the statute invalid.

If the discrimination is gender based, or against illegitimate children, then intermediate scrutiny of the law results.

If the discrimination is anything else, then the court will apply rational basis scrutiny. Almost anything passes under this type of scrutiny.

An Equal Protection challenge would be a waste of time.

 

[Gameface]

Okay, I’m fairly confused by all of this, but…

I am a resident of Utah, a great pro-gun state. I am in the military. I have a residence in Utah and spend time there often. I am stationed in California. I have a residence in California. California allows me to buy firearms here as though I was a resident. Utah allows me to buy firearms there because I am a resident and pay Utah taxes.

My question is; have I found a loop-hole? Can I buy what’s legal in Utah and take it with me to California because I am obligated to live in California by the military/federal government? Does my doing this help with any equal protection issues?

Gameface

PS, I was already a little confused, hope someone can make sense of this.

 

[Mark in California]

Equal Protection Under The Law

Equal Protection seems to me to mean being treated equally under all conditions. I Am a United States Citizen by right of birth. I am also a resident of California. I can change my state residency by simply moving to a new state, but a citizen can only lose his United States Citizenship by renouncing it.

The United States Government must, treat all U.S. Citizens regardless of place birth equally with all other U.S. Citizens. If the Federal Government is going to regulate firearm ownership, then it must be equally. Any citizen who can buy a firearm in one place in the United States should be able to buy a weapon in any place within the United States as far the U.S. Government is concerned. A Federal Law that it must be legal in you home state is patently un-Constitutional.

States would be free to regulate within their own borders, and not allow non-residents the ability to purchase within their borders, but would not be able to stop their residents from purchasing out of state if the resident meet Federal Standards and it was ok with the state he purchasing in.

Under this same theory, if the United State Government allows any segment of it population (“LEO’Sâ€) the “right†to carry a concealed weapon nationwide, without regard to states Rights, then every United States Citizen should be able to carry concealed nation wide as long as their home state trusts them to carry concealed at home.

 

[marklbucla]

So what would be the point of having seperate states if you're supposed to be treated "equally under all conditions?"

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having the same freedoms as others, but I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

 

[Mark in California]

Same rights as all other American Citizens. That is treatment from the Federal Govenerment.

States are still free to have their own laws within the bounderies of their state, they just could not have the Federal Government try and inforce "state laws" against persons not within their bounderies.

Example: There is a federal law that you may not buy a weapon that is not legal to posses in your home state. That is a state problem. If the weapon is legal to sell in the U.S., the Federal Government should not get involved.

I beleave in State's Rights, but they end at border and another States Right's begin. The Federal Government has no business either enforcing or denying States Rights, they are the right of Statehood.

 

[El Rojo]

Thanks for the evidence. Interesting that people from other states can bring in these weapons designed only to kill, but we can't have them. I am also wondering why more non-residents aren't bringing in assault weapons to rob, plunder, rape, and loot. Hmmmm, it is almost as if no crime occurs at these shooting competitions. In fact, I think the people that attend might be upstand, law abiding, productive members of society. Imagine that!

 

[Carnitas]

The United States Government must, treat all U.S. Citizens regardless of place birth equally with all other U.S. Citizens.

As I understand it that's not the point of EP.

From my previous link:

In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

I fail to understand how the law can make one shooter a felon for possessing a AW while another shooter is a-ok because he drove his AW across the border sometime during the last two weeks.

WRT to Pitspilots comments:

Thus, the Equal Protection Clause sets forth levels of scrutiny according to the type of discrimination being practiced.

If the discrimination is being practiced against someone solely because of Race, or Alienage, then the court will apply strict scrutiny, and generally find the statute invalid.

If the discrimination is gender based, or against illegitimate children, then intermediate scrutiny of the law resul
ts.

It seems clear that the existing Ca AWB descriminates againts against an entire states population infringing on a constitutionally protected right and exempts every other U.S. citizen. This would seem to be very close to discrimination based on Alienage. Additionally since the existing law restricts the behavior of California residents outside of California's jurisdiction there would seem to be legitimate commerce clause issues at stake.

The way I look at this is it would be similar to allowing a nevada resident to set up a temporary casino in Ca. or a allowing a Ak. resident to possess and use quantities of pot, or allowing a resident from a state with lower ages for statutory rape to comit statutory rape within the state.