The question is whether these new regulations would stand up to judicial scrutiny. I have no doubt that California courts will find these rules constitutional, but would it survive higher courts? I have to believe they don’t, if for no other reason that this is a clear attempt to restrict an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. That said, I’m not a legal expert. This is something for the legal experts to hammer out.
I give approximately no chance that state or federal courts will strike down these regulations. Remember, the 9th Circuit has, so far, successfully overturned Heller’s direct ruling striking DC’s safe-storage law. SCOTUS let them get away with it.
The only way this regulation is going down is if there is a chance on the Court. Otherwise it’s going to go the same way every other case has gone: there might be a temporary victory at one level of the court if we get the right judge or judges, but it’ll be undone. California prevails en banc, and SCOTUS refuses to hear the case.
California can do whatever it wants to gun owners. Pretty soon, New Jersey will be in the same position, once Christie is gone.
I am not looking forward to the next 4 years as an NJ gun owner.
I’m with you on that one. What seems particularly nefarious about these CA laws is that they make it a misdemeanor to purchase ammo out-of-state and bring it in to CA. I expect Murphy to ban internet sales of ammo, but I was counting on trips to PA to stock up (to avoid the high prices from NJ FFL’s). I wonder if he’s creative enough to make that illegal, too? Back when I was a NY resident, Sarco in Easton wouldn’t sell me ammo because of the NYSafe Act (even though nothing in the act prohibited New Yorkers from purchasing ammo out of state). Regardless of what Murphy does, I wonder how many PA dealers may imitate Sarco, just to be safe?
I’m pretty sure that might actually be against some interstate commerce regs – I seem to recall that several state laws concerning purchasing cigarettes (and maybe liquor?) out of state have been struck down on interstate commerce grounds.
Yes, it’s pretty shocking how Commiefornia has gotten away with direct violation of DC v Heller, because SCOTUS does nothing in reaction.
California not only can do anything they want to gun owners, they will. The odious anti-gun douchebag Gavin Newsom is poised to win the Governorship of California in 2018. His first year in office 2019 will usher in new horrors for California gun owners.
Jerry Brown is the “pro gun” Governor for California. He actually vetoed a few gun control bills.
Gavin Newsome will enthusiastically sign anything sent his way. The 9th circus will provide no redress.
The ammo bans are all about stifling the culture, specifically Gun Culture 2.0. These have minimal impact on the hunters and fudds. If you go through two boxes of ammo a year its not a show stopper to pay a few extra bucks or deal with some inconvenience. I’m not saying its right, I’m just saying that hunters will likely grit their teeth and shell out a few extra bucks. Some hunters may drop out altogether but they’re already doing that.
It is a real big deal for high-volume shooters. The cost per round and hassle will go up substantially. Your Gun Culture 2.0 folks who are doing competitions, attending classes, etc will be impacted. Of the Gun Culture 1.0 folks I suppose your high volume sporting clays folks will also be similarly affected.
This nonsense will simply raise the price of entry and participation in Gun Culture 2.0. A major effect will be to discourage anyone but the wealthy elite (especially young people) from getting engaged in shooting sports and Gun Culture 2.0.
A friend shocked me by talking about selling his rental homes in CA, and moving out of state. He’ll buy commercial RE in Texas, most likely, and live in NV. Since those homes will be sold to individuals, that is a nice chunk of income that CA will no longer be able to tax. In fact, I think the tax breaks for homeowners will remove even more money from their coffers.
Ammo sales in NV will increase when he moves!
I believe that because of California Proposition 13, the State would reap more property tax dollars from whoever is the new owner of your friends rental property. As houses are not reassessed a higher property value for tax purposes until the property changes ownership.
Not that that really makes any difference anyway as I expect the Democrats will do away with Proposition 13 soon enough. They have always hated that restriction on tax collections and try to blame it for State problems they are to blame for.
But your friend is wise to escape from Commiefornia to Free America.
So glad that I left. I miss the ocean, but that is it. Any gun owner who lives there needs to look at emigrating to the United States.