Announcement: California DOJ files motion to dismiss roster challenge

maestro pistolero · July 6, 2009, 04:48 PM

Peña (Roster): CA DOJ Files Motion to Dismiss here

Quote:

"With respect to any rational basis for review, maintaining consumer safety is clearly a legitimate state interest."

Excuse me, but wasn't rational basis specifically rejected by the Heller court as not applicable to the Second Amendment?

Doc Intrepid · July 6, 2009, 05:10 PM

Not according to this Motion to Dismiss, for this reason:
"They primarily assert a Second Amendment claim. But the UHA has nothing to do with the possession of a handgun for self-defense in the home, which is the core of the Second Amendment right recognized last year in the landmark decision of District of Columbia v. Heller".

I especially love this part:

"Contrary to plaintiffs' apparent assertion, there is no constitutional right to purchase any handgun of one's choice."

Basically, they are concluding that the state has the right to protect its citizens against unsafe products. (Any sort of unsafe products, from washing machines to household chemicals.)

Building on that, it is asserted that the state has the right to define what constitutes a "safe" as opposed to an "unsafe" handgun, and stipulate that it's citizens select from a state-approved list of "safe" handguns.

And this part is also noteworthy:

"The Act also allows DOJ to collect an annual fee from manufacturers or sellers to cover the costs of maintaining the roster and other costs necessary to implement the Act."

So a what amounts to a tax burden will be created to support the state's interest in protecting your safety.

The list of things wrong with this is too long to enumerate here, but ask yourself what other similar protections does the State (as opposed to the federal government) offer you against, for example, microwave ovens, lead-based paint, or Tylenol?

Don't worry. Be happy.

Doc Intrepid · July 6, 2009, 05:19 PM

The next step is to define a 'safe' handgun as one that only works for one state-approved owner, through magnetic rings, biometric grips, or what-have-you; and then to insist that 'safe' handguns link each discharge to that state-approved owner through SSN-coded taggants included in the charge inside each cartridge.

You want a 'safe handgun'?

The State of California will provide you with a 'safe handgun'!

It will be so safe that you won't be able to build, afford, keep, or use it.

And just think - all this from the same guys who can't balance their own budget! What a bargain...

JWT · July 6, 2009, 05:30 PM

No wonder they can't agree on fiscal responsibility in Kalifornia when they have time to be concerned about things like this. Amazing how the politicians know so much more that the citizens do about what's safe and what isn't. To bad they can't / don't include the folks running the state in what's unsafe for the public. Heller be damned, Kalifornia knows better!!!

maestro pistolero · July 6, 2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

No wonder they can't agree on fiscal responsibility in Kalifornia when they have time to be concerned about things like this.

Pretty soon there won't be anyone left on the doles to enforce this crap or draft any new crap. California is going to have to start issuing IOUs to prisoners who they can no longer afford to incarcerate!

I read somewhere that the prison system was issuing IOUs to the company at provides eggs and milk to the prisons.

July 6, 2009, 05:10 PM	#2
Doc Intrepid Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2009 Location: Washington State Posts: 1,037	Not according to this Motion to Dismiss, for this reason: "They primarily assert a Second Amendment claim. But the UHA has nothing to do with the possession of a handgun for self-defense in the home, which is the core of the Second Amendment right recognized last year in the landmark decision of District of Columbia v. Heller". I especially love this part: "Contrary to plaintiffs' apparent assertion, there is no constitutional right to purchase any handgun of one's choice." Basically, they are concluding that the state has the right to protect its citizens against unsafe products. (Any sort of unsafe products, from washing machines to household chemicals.) Building on that, it is asserted that the state has the right to define what constitutes a "safe" as opposed to an "unsafe" handgun, and stipulate that it's citizens select from a state-approved list of "safe" handguns. And this part is also noteworthy: "The Act also allows DOJ to collect an annual fee from manufacturers or sellers to cover the costs of maintaining the roster and other costs necessary to implement the Act." So a what amounts to a tax burden will be created to support the state's interest in protecting your safety. The list of things wrong with this is too long to enumerate here, but ask yourself what other similar protections does the State (as opposed to the federal government) offer you against, for example, microwave ovens, lead-based paint, or Tylenol? Don't worry. Be happy.

July 6, 2009, 05:19 PM	#3
Doc Intrepid Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2009 Location: Washington State Posts: 1,037	The next step is to define a 'safe' handgun as one that only works for one state-approved owner, through magnetic rings, biometric grips, or what-have-you; and then to insist that 'safe' handguns link each discharge to that state-approved owner through SSN-coded taggants included in the charge inside each cartridge. You want a 'safe handgun'? The State of California will provide you with a 'safe handgun'! It will be so safe that you won't be able to build, afford, keep, or use it. And just think - all this from the same guys who can't balance their own budget! What a bargain...

July 6, 2009, 05:30 PM	#4
JWT Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 2007 Location: Southern Arizona Posts: 3,888	No wonder they can't agree on fiscal responsibility in Kalifornia when they have time to be concerned about things like this. Amazing how the politicians know so much more that the citizens do about what's safe and what isn't. To bad they can't / don't include the folks running the state in what's unsafe for the public. Heller be damned, Kalifornia knows better!!!