California Backs Down, Dealing a Big Blow and the Secret Service Weighs In – TTAG Daily Digest

California Compliant AR Assault Rifle Registration

courtesy FN USA

California DOJ Withdraws Regulation Requiring Registration of ‘Assault Weapons’

How great is that? . . .

The California Department of Justice withdrew a regulation Wednesday evening requiring California firearm owners to register so-called “assault weapons” following a lawsuit filed by a group of gun rights advocacy organizations including Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), The Calguns Foundation (CGF) and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL).

“The DOJ’s proposed rule making in this case was a smoke-screen to cover their tracks and other prior unlawful regulatory actions,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in a statement. “While we are pleased that our opposition efforts were ultimately successful here, we know that Attorney General Becerra is relentless in his attacks on law-abiding gun owners and their Second Amendment rights. FPC will continue to defend the people of California and our Constitution from his DOJ’s abusive executive actions.”

The lawsuit was filed, SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said in a previous statement, because of California DOJ’s Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS) breaking down during the deadline week for people to register their firearms in accordance with new state laws.

CU Boulder Assault Weapons Ban Shooting Sports Club

courtesy bisontactical.com

CU Boulder students join effort to fight Boulder’s new assault weapon ban

Look for Tyler to be harassed the next time he sets foot in public . . .

Some pro-Second Amendment college students have joined efforts to fight a new ban on assault weapons in Boulder, Colo.

It’s a city known as a haven for left-wing causes, but right-of-center students who call the region home say the ban is unconstitutional and want it reversed, including a 20-year-old CU Boulder student.

A lead plaintiff to overturn the law, which takes effect in January, is 20-year-old Tyler Faye, a member of the CU Boulder Shooting Sports club. He joined the lawsuit because the city’s new ordinance raises the age for legal firearm ownership from 18 to 21, the Daily Camerareports.

“Boulder is clearly discriminating against students who live within city limits and is preventing us from exercising our constitutionally protected rights,” Faye told The College Fix by email.

Here’s How Kavanaugh Could Deal a Big Blow to Gun Control

That light they thought they saw at the end of the tunnel in 2016 is an oncoming train . . .

President Donald Trump’s selection of Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court has been met with concern in a variety of progressiveadvocacy circles, but one group’s condemnation has been particularly swift and forceful: proponents of gun control.

Organizations like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, and Giffords—the group founded by former Arizona congresswoman and gun violence survivor Gabby Giffords—all issued statements denouncing Trump’s pick. Protesters representing their cause counted themselves among the hundreds who assembled at the Supreme Court last night to object to the president’s choice.

The outcry might seem surprising, since the Supreme Court has barely heard any gun-related cases since 2008, when it upheld law-abiding citizens’ right to gun ownership in District of Columbia v.Heller while stipulating that such ownership should be regulated. But according to Brady co-president Avery Gardiner, a former lawyer, that may have had more to do with the moderate makeup of the court than an absence of legal challenges to gun control, and another Trump appointee may make the court more willing to take on such cases.

The cases heading to the nation’s highest court are constitutional challenges to the “common sense” measures gun control activists have implored lawmakers to pass since the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Parkland shooting mother cruz

courtesy upi.com

Police are calling the Parkland shooter’s mom an “enabler” — but don’t let that distract you from the real issue

No, the real issue was the school, the Broward County Sheriff and the FBI bungled the whole thing from start to finish . . .

On July 10th, BuzzFeed News reported that counselors had warned Lynda Cruz against letting her son purchase guns, but she ignored their advice. In a meeting with the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said that the shooter’s mother had interfered with attempts to address his behavioral problems.

According to the Associated Press, in the meeting, Gualtieri called Lynda Cruz “an enabler.” Cruz was reportedly living with his mother when he legally purchased the AR-15 used in the shooting.

The AP reports that Gualtieri claimed Lynda Cruz told her son’s counselors, “If he wants to have a gun, he could have a gun.”

Secret Service rolls out new ways to identify and stop student attackers

“Threat assessment teams” . . .

The Secret Service – known for protecting the president – is now using their expertise to protect schools in the wake of a spate of deadly mass shootings.

The new guidelines on enhancing school safety are based on research from the U.S. Secret Service‘s National Threat Assessment Center. Lina Alathari, the author of the operational guide, told ABC News that although guns were used the majority of the time in the crimes studied, the report also includes attacks carried out using a “lethal weapon,” such as a knife, gun or explosives.

After the shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado, the Secret Service approached the Department of Education and offered to use the same methods they use to study assassins to study school shooters.

“No one had really studied school shooters from an operational preventive perspective before,” Alathari says.

 

 

comments

  1. avatar former water walker says:

    Steve Coalbert thinks “BRETT” is an unsuitable name for a Supreme. They’re getting flustered and there is zero evidence Brett is a bad guy…oh well. I mention AGAIN but how many safe act victim’s registered their evil gat?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Steve Colbert illustrates yet again that Progressives will simply manufacture something to deride good people who defend our rights.

      Thus, don’t fret about having the perfect argument or behavior. It will not matter because Progressives will make up something to condemn you. Instead of playing defense and trying to avoid Progressive ire, play offense and actually reach people with the truth. And that includes taking fence-sitters and nay-sayers to a range and introducing them to shooting.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        Colbert is, first and foremost, a comedian. To think that this somehow makes him a political commentator is to think that Tom Cruise must be a super spy. To think that his commentaries are worth seriously considering is to think that Cruise is a really good super spy.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Problem is, millions of people on the left and in the middle DO think his political jibes are worth serious consideration. And although it’s in the guise of comedy, Colbert definitely is and has been a political commentator. Political commentary via satire was his entire schtick before he left it behind and assumed his “true” persona on legacy network TV.

          And if you’ve seen his successors/spinoffs on cable, you know that it’s always been political with these people, never actually about the comedy. If comedy was their raison d’ etre, they might have chosen people who could actually do comedy (instead of John Oliver, Trevor Noah, and Samantha “Feckless Cunt” Bee).

        2. avatar DesertDave says:

          Not wanting to promote stupidity as the national sport, but looks like stupidity has overtaken baseball in popularity. Any stunod even watching that trash proves just how stupid they really are. You have to be sub 3 digit IQ to tolerate that bravo sierra.

        3. avatar frank speak says:

          does anybody actually watch this little twerp?…as soon as he comes on I reach for the remote…

    2. avatar million says:

      “comedy”

  2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    So CA is back to the bullet button being okay? Likely not. Part of the reason CA gun control laws need to be ruled unconstitutional is the vague, arbitrary, and capricious nature of everything the idiots in their legislature pass, and their twit of a governor signs into law. Not to mention the deliberately moving target they create of staying legal in that ridiculous state.

    1. avatar CalGunsMD says:

      They are NOT idiots and he is NOT a twit.
      They know EXACTLY what they’re doing.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        their excesses will be their undoing…making future cases easier to win….

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      Three things changed in the statutory (penal code) “assault weapon” law: (1) the definition of “detachable magazine”, (2) the grandfather registration of newly classified “assault weapons” because of the definition change, and (3) the writing of a blank check to the DOJ that allowed them to write “regulations” for assault weapons without having to go through the legislative process.

      The DOJ regulations made up their own deffinitions and enacted about 20 new felonies that arn’t any where in the stutory codified law books. Anybody who registered an “assault weapon” is an idiot and can have the carpet pulled out from under them at any time by the DOJ with a simple flick of a pen. The State Senate and Legislature don’t have to do anything, because they gave the State AG full discretion. It’s gross and illegal overreach and they know it.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        I’m sure that they destroyed all of the registration information that was obtained to make up for their transgressions on their citizens rights. sarc

  3. avatar RA-15 says:

    Screw the gun grabbing leftaticks. Parasitic Leftards !! Let’s hope ny falls in line in the realization that they ” dirty leftist politicians ” are wrong , dirty , lying , shitbags that need emptying into the nearest toilet !! Assault rifles my ass. We deserve our rights back. Or they need to find new jobs. 10 round fixed “clipmagazine ” are they that fn idiotic ? Don’t answer that , we know they are. Focus on baby killers , drug overdoses , or one of the many other plagues in our state. Stop infringing on our 2nd amendment RIGHT’S TO KEEP AND BEAR ANY DAMN GUN WE CHOOSE. After all I do pay cash for my weapons. Not the leftist gun grabbing flower sniffers.

  4. avatar jwm says:

    Trump 2020.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      Before that, the important thing is that the Republicans hold the Senate. If any of the sitting Justices departs, for any reason, before 2020, Trump will need a Republican Senate to confirm him or her. Then we can start worrying about 2020.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        They will. It’s over for the left. They just haven’t quit twitching in their death throes yet.

        We will have constitutional carry nationwide, even NYC and CA, by the time Trumps second term is done. Maybe sooner.

        1. avatar timothy says:

          I don’t believe that Dems are in their death throws. I think they have roughly a third of all voters and a complicit media which holds a tremendous amount of sway over the more independent third of all voters and sway over rinos. I think Dems are deeply embedded into the most populous areas and short of their party breaking up will be impossible to dislodge.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Timothy. I think that if the dems don’t back off the far left lunacy they are done. If moderate dems don’t get control of the party then they are done.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          I hope you’re right, JWM, but I wouldn’t count on it. The Republican party is feckless enough to squander every opportunity they’ve been handed, and the progressive illusion has a lot of residual momentum.

          PS: Is portuguese the same color as chartreuse?

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        There’s no way the Demonkkkrats can take the Senate. They’re defending something like 26 of 33 seats and they’ve got several red state dems that are almost certainly going to get the boot. And if they keep running on ‘impeach Trump’ and ‘abolish ICE’ they’ll probably lose a bunch of seats in the House as well.

        1. avatar timothy says:

          Outside of the economy crashing or an unpopular war, or a conclusion to the Mueller investigation eminating in a recommendation for indictment of Trump, I would agree with you. I also think these things are highly unlikely

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          Chickens, eggs, hatching, etc.

          It’s a long way to November. Hopefully it all works out. My point is mainly that while there has been good news recently, nothing is consolidated yet.

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Yes it’s a long way to November. But the Dems are defending seats in Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, Florida, Indiana, West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvania. To take the Senate they need to win all of those and win in two of the following, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Tennessee, Alabama, Nebraska and Wyoming. The only Republican seat that could possibly flip is Nevada the only state Trump lost in the Dem column is Virginia. I can’t see how anybody who isn’t high on jenkem could see a road to Dem victory with that map.

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        Har,. The progs will be very luck if they have 42 seats in Jan. My bet is they are down to 40 (dems, commies, etc).

  5. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Would like to see Federal legislation that makes it a felony (without immunity from prosecution) for any politician, including on the state and local level, to usurp the Constitution by proposing, writing or supporting any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Should be prosecuted as a hate crime as it’s a malicious attempt at the denial of the civil rights of all those potentially effected. If the state involved has for example, 8 million citizens, there should be 8 million counts in the indictment. All prison terms to be served consecutively.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      That would be unconstitutional. See: The Eleventh Amendment.

      1. avatar Blurb says:

        The 11th bans the hearing by the federal judiciary of cases of “law or equity” against states by citizens of other states, and by those of foreign governments. It does not ban hearing of criminal case against state governments by the federal government, nor of civil cases by citizens of the same state.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          It should be written like states with pre-emption laws, except WE are the ones pre-empting. Oklahoma’s pre-emption laws allow for personal responsibility of both individuals and municipalities.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        It’s a wonderful idea, except Congress would never pass legislation which would restrict itself. It’s unconstitutional? Maybe? Here’s a plan to avoid both problems; amend the constitution to hang offenders on the Capitol lawn.

  6. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Im holding my breath until the vacancy is filled and the 1st case is actually taken a look at.
    Until then even with Kavanagh’s prior writings on DCs bans. Also his writings on “in common use”.
    Doesn’t mean squat. We can no longer trust Roberts for anything. He is the next Kennedy in the Court.
    He cant be trusted.
    When and if Trump gets a 3rd pick. And given the ages and health of a certain old biddy leftover, who will never quit. They will have to carry here out in a bag. Then there’s Bryer,whos getting up there in age. Plus the 2 other lying women on the court. Im reasonably sure he will get at the least a 3rd pick in term 1.The courts not exactly a loaded gun by any means. Its still a round or 2 of a full load.
    Then Ill be a happy camper.
    Until there is a #3 pick.
    I don’t see how much if anything of substance will change with the courts current makeup.
    There will still be a ton of 5/4s that can go in any direction. Roberts being the loose round in all of this.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      In his defense, the ‘common use’ writings are simply his honest attempts at following the Heller ruling without bias. We can’t blame him for Heller’s flaws, that’s on SCOTUS.

      Just be glad we have at least one federal judge who has been trying to follow the Heller decision, along with the dozens (hundreds?) who have been trying to render it meaningless.

    2. avatar Jeh says:

      Roberts has been 99% reliable as a conservative vote on the court. Kennedy was never anywhere near as reliable.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      How many picks is irrelevant. What is important is who he gets to replace. So far, one staunch conservative and one swing voter. What we NEED is replacement of one flaming liberal, like RBG. Replacing a couple more conservatives is nice, but changes nothing.

  7. avatar Don says:

    Wish someone would have filed a law suit in NY.

    1. avatar Random NYer says:

      You’re telling me. For any number of gun laws, really.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Strangely, the federal courts in NY have recently been worse for gun owners than those in CA.

  8. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

    California’s Peña V. Lindley, a gun registration case, is before the 9th ‘Circus’.

    I fully expect them to slow-walk that one as long as possible, but when it gets submitted as a SCOTUS petition of cert., would that be a case we want heard by the ‘Men (and women) in Black’?

  9. avatar ANG Pilot says:

    Re: CA Assault Rifle Registry…What happens to the records of everyone who previously complied with the law and registered their gun(s)? Is CA DOJ allowed to hold those records for future reference?

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      It won’t mean much if we can get gun registration declared unconstitutional. And if Kavanaugh gets confirmed, we have a solid shot at that…

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        You think any digital record EVER goes away. It’s being backed up at least daily. To multiple servers.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          “I sold that AR at the last gun show, sir…”

          When does SCOTUS announce the next batch of petitions for cert.granted? And what cases are being considered?

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          How about (when questioned about where your previously ‘registered’ firearms [a/k/a: all your personal information that the POS (D) in California GOT FUCKING PAID to release to any and all bad-actors offering cash]) are “HAVE YOU CHECKED YOUR ASS???”

          Followed up by (while loading an AR mag . . .) “GO AHEAD, I’LL WAIT . . .”

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      Even if the state of Ca is told they have to delete the database, you and I both know that there will always be a copy somewhere so the gun grabbers can act at another date.

  10. avatar Shawn says:

    Why did california back down? The 9th circuit hates guns, hates got owners, and want every single gun owner exterminated. If it went to them the state would win anyway. The ninth circuit wants all guns banned with door to door confiscation and all gun owners killed without trail in there own yards and those that are not sent to camps to be exterminated. To them the gun owners final solution is constitutional and should be implemented. Doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh does get appointed. SCOTUS will still refuse to hear literally every single solitary gun related case. Meaning that entire bans and confiscation WILL be upholded by the lower courts and the circuit courts. What happened in Deerfield is merely a delay. They will get their ban. And due to the courts the blanket ban of all semi auto rifle and handgun will be legal and constitutional.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Why did they back down? Massive, record level non-compliance with the law.

      Of the 6,000,000 gun owners in California, approximately 6,000 of them registered an “assault weapon”.

      That’s civil disobedience on a whole new level.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Don’t discount the ENORMOUS (D)1CK MOVE OF SELLING-OFF (cough; ‘we were hacked’) YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION.

  11. avatar Tony Tony says:

    The article draws the wrong conclusion about the regulations that were withdrawn in California. The registration period ended as planned on the night of June 30th. A set of regulations were crafted that outlined and defined the registration period, which again, is now complete. But those definitions and regulations were only applicable to the registration of the new class of assault weapon.

    The DOJ attempted to use these newly crafted regulations to completely define this new class of assault weapon, OUTSIDE of the scope of registration. These are what was withdrawn. For now.

    Assault weapon registration still happened and those regulations still exist.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Yep….. The Penal Code gives the state AG and DOJ a blank check. They can regulate “assault weapons” however they see fit now and change the regulations on a whim. If you registered your guns, that means you gave them multiple detailed high definition photographs of your gun, all your personal informaion, and the information of the people you bought your gun from. If they ever change the regulations (without any legislative process) and determine that you are now a felon, they have everything they need to write a warrant, search your home, and/or arrest you and confiscate your property.

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        You understand this better than most people. The way I read the penal code, as long as there is an available magazine that fits a semi-auto weapons that can hold over 10 rounds, the AG has the discretion to declare a semi-auto an assault weapon (that includes handguns). I fully expect a future AG letter declaring any double stacked pistol to be an assault weapon.
        California did not back down… it is just re-writing.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          I see the whole thing being resolved by . . .

          FUCKING OUTRAGEOUS ACTS OF WANTON VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR AND STATE HOUSES.

          (And likely a few Mayors)

          what, you were looking for a specific date?

        2. avatar rt66paul says:

          Are you saying that a clip fed rifle that someone makes a removable mag system for could come under this law?

  12. avatar SurfGW says:

    California ONLY TEMPORARILY backed down. The DOJ is waiting for Villanueva v Becerra decision to see what will be allowed to require registration. Since the 9th Circuit is likely to be favorable to Becerra, some form of registration will probably return unless it gets appealed to a pro-gun SCOTUS.

  13. avatar NonLinear9 says:

    I realize the CRPA press release made it sound that way, but what just happened in California has nothing to do with throwing out the registration requirement. Nobody is really sure exactly what it will mean but it certainly won’t mean that. More than likely the DOJ is just covering their asses because they found a mistake in the regs they submitted to the OAL and wanted to resubmit before getting rejected and trying again then.

    And these regulations only apply to the definition of an assault rifle for purposes of enforcement now that registration is closed. The best possible outcome (an extreme longshot) is that the ban on removing the bullet button after registration, which was not in the law but just made up by the DOJ, would be removed, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

    If you want to check out some analysis by people who are more informed, check out the discussion thread on calguns (http://http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1462193) for a taste of the head-spinning legal gymnastics gun owners in CA have to keep track of on a daily basis.

    1. avatar red_dirt says:

      Thank you for for shedding light on this and clarifying what just happened. Unless you spend a lot of time on calguns, way to much time in fact, it’s hard to separate fact from fiction (fud). It’s not like the ca DOJ is helpful in any way, 0 public outreach efforts, no clarification on compliance devices (let your lawyer and the local da work that out after arrest). Of the 6 ffls around me only 2 appear to understand the new regs in any meaningful way ( that’s where I got to try out the thodrson stock and monsterman grip and made the decision to go featurless ). I see very little compliance at the range, most people just dont know or care. Fortunately our current sheriff doesn’t give 2 shits either unless you are doing something stupid, the highway patrol and fish and game are a different story. Fun times. My neighbors a couple of properties down have 5 giant green houses full of weed, and good to go, but God forbid I have a thing that goes up on my carbine. Makes total sense. May you live in interesting times my ass.

  14. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The AP reports that Gualtieri claimed Lynda Cruz told her son’s counselors, “If he wants to have a gun, he could have a gun.”
    She did not help the situation.

  15. avatar barnbwt says:

    Too bad California’s government still has some strategic thinkers; the only reason they relented is because pursuing these regs would have brought the whole damn house down.

  16. avatar Joe R. says:

    F CA.

    In the eye.

  17. avatar m. says:

    cali-fagnia gun control d-rat d-suckers may not like the response if they threaten others with grievous bodily harm or death

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Are you and Joe R. working together? Concocting new and better insults? Or is this a competition?

  18. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    The problem in CA … it is a poor plan to play a game against the ref.

  19. avatar MDB says:

    “Protesters representing their cause counted themselves among the hundreds who assembled at the Supreme Court last night to object to the president’s choice.”

    Is “amoung the hundreds” supposed to be an impressive quantity of people?

  20. avatar An1 says:

    “That light they thought they saw at the end of the tunnel in 2016 is an oncoming train . . .” HAHA

  21. avatar Jim Bullock\ says:

    So, when the CA folk have a viable threat of opposition in the courts they back off.

    They won’t learn anything. It’s wrong to think they’ll ever stop trying. They push, push back. They take a shot, let them trip themselves up. They insist on doing a thing, make them own it. Better to realize it’s just a cost of doing business. Plan for it. Account for it. Like clipping your toe nails, realize you’re gonna be just doing it, for however long you live.

    It’s tedious and bothersome, this constant hacking back the kudzu. But it’ll never stop, because they have nothing better to do. They count on us getting tired of pushing back, because we do.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email