Kamala Harris
Previous Post
Next Post

“The government cannot credibly argue that handguns without CLI, MDM, and microstamping features pose unacceptable public safety risks when virtually all of the handguns available on the Roster and sold in California today lack those features.”

That’s the eminently reasonable conclusion of US District Judge Cormac J. Carney in his ruling today in Boland v. Bonta, a lawsuit challenging the state of California’s approved handgun roster and related mandates that pistols have magazine disconnects and loaded chamber indicators.

Judge Carney noted the inherent contradiction of the state banning the sale of guns they claim are dangerous to average citizens, yet allowing law enforcement agencies and officers to buy and carry those very same guns every day as they protect and serve Californians…with allegedly dangerous firearms.

Similarly, if Off-Roster firearms were truly unsafe, California would not allow law enforcement to use them in the line of duty, when the stakes are highest. But the substantial majority of California’s law enforcement officers use Off-Roster handguns in the line of duty.

There’s also the inconvenient fact that the California DOJ — led at the time by an obscure Attorney General named Kamala Harris — lied about the availability of microstamping technology to firearm manufacturers.

The microstamping requirement has prevented any new handgun models from being added to the Roster since May 2013. Although the California Department of Justice certified on May 17, 2013 that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions, the technology still was not available. Indeed, to this day, a decade after the requirement took effect, no firearm manufacturer in the world makes a firearm with this capability. 

In effect, the state mandated a non-existent technology in order to limit over time the number of firearms approved for retail sale to California citizens.

In the end, Judge Carney concluded . . .

Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves. They should not be forced to settle for decade-old models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home. But unfortunately, the UHA’s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements do exactly that. Because enforcing those requirements implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, and the government fails to point to any well-established historical analogues that are consistent with them, those requirements are unconstitutional and their enforcement must be preliminarily enjoined. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

And with that, Judge Carney blocked enforcement of the California law. His order, however, doesn’t go into effect for 14 days. That’s intended to give the state time to file an appeal and possibly convince a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge to issue a stay blocking the District Court’s ruling, keeping the current law in place. Look for that to happen. Still, a good and long overdue outcome.

Stay tuned.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “Judge Carney noted the inherent contradiction of the state banning the sale of guns they claim are dangerous to average citizens, yet allowing law enforcement agencies and officers to buy and carry those very same guns every day as they protect and serve Californians…with those allegedly dangerous firearms. Government contradiction at it’s finest. 🤔

    “Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art handguns to protect themselves.”


    • This was a heavy duty dose of truth.
      We will see if in 15 days we can get the latest GLOCK 19 in our local FFL.
      If I were a betting man I would say the manufactures need to start working over time right now. We will see a cavum like with the magazine freedom week.
      I am sure they will appeal. In fact I am positive they will appeal.
      Whether that appeal sticks or not is anyone’s guess.
      There is a legitimate point, where they might sacrifice California for the sake of the rest of the ninth circuit. This will at least slow their losses.
      Or Bonta could kiss the right asses, eerrr I mean convince the right judges to put a hold on it barring appeal. They are slowing the inevitable.
      Of course now this judge basically stated that these “safety” features are BS. That same logic can be applied tp rifles as well.
      It will happen eventually.

      • It will not happen quickly, even if no stay is requested for the simple reason that the drop safe requirement remains in effect, and manufacturers must still submit two examples and a bunch of ammo for testing for each separate model to be added to the Roster. It takes time for the testing to be performed. Fortunately, it is done by outside contractors, not by the DOJ itself. I suspect it will be several months (assuming the decision stands) before any new models are available for sale.

        On the plus side, Colt will be able to sell 1911s again, and Kimber can add a bunch of its new models (after most of its models fell off the
        Roster). Glock Gen 5s will be available, along with any number iof previously banned subcompacts like the SIG, the Savage, Springfield Armory models, and so forth.

      • Wait…I just took a break from my work schedule to check on TTAG.

        What just happened? I need to moment to digest this and dig deeper into the details (rubs eyes, wonders if he’s dreaming…)

        • Yes, Virginia, you may one day get to own a NAA Mini-Revolver of your very own! 🙂

          Perfect for dispatching armadillos in the garden…

      • Daniel,

        One important little tidbit about appellate practice is that the appeals coCudge and, if there is one, jury). They are prohibited from engaging in what is called a “trial de novo”, and hearing direct evidence. If Carney wrote his opinion as well as Benitez wrote his, the 9th Circus is blued, screwed, and tattooed. There is literally NO WAY, with Benitez’ factual findings and the holding in Bruen, that the 9th Circus can do anything but uphold Benitez.

        As usual, in ALL these cases, the ‘facts’ presented by the proponents of the laws were bulls*** statistics, or flat-out lies (like CA certifying that microstamping technology was available). That KKKalifornia’s OWN LEOs carry guns that are not legal for civilians to purchase is just icing on the cake.

        Lying liars gotta lie.

      • Most FFLs in California, in my area at least, already have ‘off roster” firearms. They are even in prominent display in glass cases with a sign “For LEOs only”. When the roster finally gets repealed (hopefully), all that needs to be done is to remove that sign.

    • No such thing as a constitutional (natural) right. The Amendments are explicit prohibitions on government infringement of rights; nothing more, nothing less.

      The right to keep and bear arms is NOT dependent on Amendment II. If the amendment is removed tomorrow, we the people — ALL people in ALL nations in ALL times still have the right to keep and bear arms.

      Spread the word and kill the mis/disinformation.

  2. I bet the 9th Circuit won’t accept the appeal. It’s the same reason they sent all of these cases back to the District Courts in CA after Bruen. If the 9th Circuit does hear the appeal, they will have to make a decision that sets precedent for the entire 9th Circuit, which includes Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. They know that the Bruen decision is going to leave with little choice but to strike down all these gun control laws. They don’t want to set that precedent for the entire Circuit, so I think they will avoid that by not hearing the appeals.

    • “They don’t want to set that precedent for the entire Circuit, so I think they will avoid that by not hearing the appeals.”

      More likely, 9th Circus is salivating at the opportunity to poke a finger in the eye of the SC, knowing that delay is the name of the game. Until the SC accepts an appeal of the 9th Circus, the status quo in Californication will remain.

      Remember, there are no sanctions against judges who defy the SC.

      • “Remember, there are no sanctions against judges who defy the SC.”
        Just like legislators thumbing their noses at the Constitution, how unfortunate that they can’t be charged somehow.

      • Sam,

        As for the timing issue, you are correct, but Eric is right – they get MORE delay out of sending it back to Benitez, first. Part of my wishes St. Roger would just put a Post-it note on the damned remand saying, “See!! I TOLD you so, you friggin’ @$$holes!! I hereby RESUBMIT my original opinion.”, but he’s too professional and scholarly to do that. He’ll take his time, write a new opinion adding the Thomas “text, history, tradition” test, and send it back. THAT’S when the fun starts.

        My guess is that they’ll take whatever Benitez (and now Carney) send them, pull some absolute bulls*** ‘rationale’ out of their collective fourth points of contact, and overrule it. THEN they’ll accept a petition for rehearing en banc (MORE time wasted), and finally let it go to SCOTUS . . . PRAYING, the entire time, that Senile Joe will get to replace at least one, if not two, justices. And, to further extend the stall, blue state legislatures will keep passing NEW clearly unconstitutional “common sense gun laws”, to keep the cycle going until they get a SCOTUS that will rule “the right way”.

        Leftist/fascists are many vile and irrational things, but give them this . . . they play the long game. The Leftist movement could teach patience to a glacier.

        As many have pointed out, in this and other discussion threads, at this point, on the 2A, the blue states are playing their best “stall” game.

    • Umm, sorry Charlie, I mean Eric, an appeal to the Ninth, unlike an appeal to the Supreme Court, is as of right; the Court cannot refuse to hear the appeal. Also, I don’t think that any other state has a Roster like California’s. The biggie will be “assault weapons” bans when Judge Benitez decides that case he has now.

      • Mark,

        Not QUITE correct. Every party to a district court decision does have an absolute right to appeal to the 9th Circus. The 9th does NOT have to grant every petition for appeal. Now, if they DON’T grant the petition, the lower court ruling stands as entered (and they sure as hell don’t want Benitez’ or Carney’s opinions to stand), but they are NOT obligated to hear every appeal.

        • “…but they are NOT obligated to hear every appeal.”

          Whether required to hear every appeal, or not, the courts manage their hearing schedule as suits them.

          Charles Nichols has been in court since 2011, fighting Calif open carry ban.

        • “The 9th does NOT have to grant every petition for appeal”

          I think you’re thinking of the supreme court – they’re the only ones that can choose which cases they want to even hear.

        • No, Eric in Oregon, Lamp is correct. An Appellate Court does not have to hear each and every appeal; they do a cursory review and decide whether or not there MIGHT be some merit to the appeal. If an Appellate Court had to hear each and every appeal they would have to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Out of all the cases that do get heard, only about 2-5% overturn the decision of a lower court.

        • No Walter Beverly, Lamp is *not* correct. (I’m licensed to practice in the Supreme Court and five US Courts of Appeals, and clerked for a judge on the Fifth Circuit.)

          Litigant have the right to appeal final judgments of a federal district court to the designated U.S. Court of Appeals. That court may summarily affirm on the briefs (i.e., it doesn’t have oral argument), but it must consider each appeal on the merits.

          SCOTUS, on the other hand, deals with >99% of the cases on a discretionary basis.

        • Eric,

          WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Every circuit court of appeals has the right to deny a hearing to any appeal – can be either for substantive, or procedural, grounds. METHOD of denial is important – the Court of Appeals can affirm, remand, reverse, reverse with direction, or just flat-out deny.

          Go check the number of appeals filed in your circuit. Then check the Court of Appeals docket. See all those appeals listed? No????

          Strange, that. No idea where this concept that ALL appeals from District Courts MUST be heard by the Court of Appeals came from, but it’s wrong. No, the Court of Appeals does NOT have to “consider each appeal on the merits”. They can deny an appeal for procedural reasons, they can let the lower court ruling stand, they can remand it, they can remand it with instructions, or they can just . . . deny the appeal. No hearing. No review. Happens literally every day.

        • LKB, I am afraid that Lamp is 100% correct. While an Appeals Court will “review” a matter which has been appealed, most appeals are reviewed and the appellate court lets the decision of the lower court STAND without comment.

          Litigant DO have the right to appeal final judgments of a federal district court to the designated U.S. Court of Appeals. That court may summarily affirm on the briefs (i.e., it doesn’t have oral argument), but it must consider each appeal on the merits. While most cases appealed are “reviewed”, MOST are never heard. Again, if they did, the appeals courts would have to sit 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

          SCOTUS, on the other hand, deals with >99% of the cases on a discretionary basis. Agreed in part. Each case submitted to the Supreme Court is REVIEWED and most times the court just lets the ruling of the lower court stand without comment or hearing the case.
          While you might be admitted to practice in the Supreme Court and appeals courts and having been a clerk, you might find that you are sometimes, wrong?

        • Walter Beverley:

          “While most cases appealed are “reviewed”, MOST are never heard. Again, if they did, the appeals courts would have to sit 24 hours a day 7 days a week.”

          Nope. That’s simply not how it works. Even ridiculous pro se prisoner cases (which make up a significant portion of federal appellate dockets) get “heard.”

          Same challenge I made to Lamp: show me *one* FRAP 3 case — from ANY circuit — where the court of appeals did not review the case.

          I’ll wait.

        • LKB, First, learn to spell my last name.
          Second, Lamp is correct. I believe you have MISREAD my post. I said all cases are REVIEWED by at least one Judge at the Appellate Court level. Your definition of “heard”coincides with my statement which says that each case is “reviewed” by an Appellate Judge. Seems like many “attotneys”, you like to split hairs and parlance the language.

        • WB:

          Again, you are simply wrong. *All* FRAP 3 cases that are properly perfected are decided by a panel of three judges — just like cases set for oral argument. The record on appeal and the level of briefing for cases decided on screening panels v. cases decided after oral argument are the same. And many cases that are initially set for oral argument are then decided without it (typically because there is an intervening case that comes down that supplies binding precedent, and thus there is no need for oral argument to summarily affirm or reverse).

          This is basic, first year of law school stuff.

        • LKB, Seems that you added “properly perfected”. Now why is that? I never said that a “perfected appeal” is not heard and what’s worse, is you know it. Just like any not worth his salt attorney, you want to split hairs to make yourself LOOK correct. I suggest that you review this:
          Have a good day, but this time stop splitting hairs, “counselor”.

        • WB:

          As you’ll see in my original challenge to Lamp (in the chain below), I’ve always been talking about properly perfected appeals brought under FRAP 3 (which is the rule you linked to) — i.e., one where an appellant has properly and timely filed a notice of appeal, got the record ordered and sent up, filed the briefs on time and in the proper form, etc. (Every court — from traffic court to SCOTUS — will nuke your case if you won’t follow these kinds of basic filing rules. These are simple rules to follow and it is the rare appeal that is dismissed for failure to follow them.)

          I also note that, like Lamp, you’re unable to meet the challenge I set out: to find a single case involving a properly perfected FRAP 3 appeal where the court purportedly “denied” the appeal. You can’t because, contrary to your and Lamp’s belief, those simply do not exist. FRAP requires the court to adjudicate the appeal — they cannot simply refuse to do so a-la a SCOTUS cert denial.

          Again, this is basic, first year of law school stuff.

        • LKB, I see you just can’t stand being shown to be wrong. It seems you have left out all of the appeals which were reviewed by an appellate court which were thrown out without any comment by the Appeals Courts. No kidding that the appeal will be thrown out if the “rules” are not followed. For your edification, I happen to have been involved with one such appeal where a ruling by a City Judge was appealed by the City and the city failed to perfect the appeal. The appeal was tossed and the original decision of the City court was left in tact.
          Again, have the uncanny ability to try to turn a defeat into a “victory (hollow as it is)”.

        • WB:

          Cite me to a single FEDERAL appellate case (which is what we are talking about) where a FRAP 3 appeal was “thrown out without comment.”

          I’ll wait.

          If you can’t (and I daresay you won’t be able to), then who is wrong?

        • LKB Again, you try to make milk out of water? Yes, we were talking about FEDERAL appellate cases, But you threw in FRAP 3’s to try to make yourself look right. Grow up! You lost and you like a lot of attorneys just can’t admit when you are WRONG.

        • WB,

          No. An APPEAL of a judgment (or preliminary injunction, or certain other limited areas like a qualified immunity finding where there is an appeal of right) *is* a FRAP 3 appeal. That’s what we’ve been talking about (and what the vast, vast majority of non-habeas cases in the federal courts of appeals are), although your demonstrable ignorance of basic appellate procedure blinds you to that reality. (If your comments were an answer on a 1L Federal Civil Procedure exam, you’d fail the class.)

          Note again that WB cannot identify a single FRAP 3 appeal that was “decided by a single judge,” or was “denied.” That’s because they don’t exist. So long as you’ve followed the rules and have all the pieces in place for the appeal, FRAP 3 appeals *must* be adjudicated by the Court of Appeals, period. They don’t get to pick and choose which appeals they will decide like SCOTUS, which is what you and Lamp are erroneously claiming.

        • LKB, the wannabe. Again for the THIRD time. you try to make milk out of water? Yes, we were talking about FEDERAL appellate cases, But you threw in FRAP 3’s to try to make yourself look right. Grow up! You lost and you like a lot of attorneys just can’t admit when you are WRONG.
          For an “attorney: who claims to know all about appeals, you forget that there are appeals other than FRAP 3’s?
          Get a grip! You have been shown up by a guy who isn’t even an attorney.

        • @Lamp, thanks for providing entertainment. Please keep right on spouting Your Truth.

        • Eric in Oregon, Lamp does speak to the Truth. Something that our Leftist adversaries don’t want to hear.

      • Lamp:

        No offense, but I take it you are not a federal appellate attorney. I am, and you are simply wrong on federal appellate practice.

        I think you are confusing an appeal being “heard” and having oral argument on an appeal. (An appeal can be “heard” [i.e., decided] without oral argument.) And there is a huge difference between a court of appeals hearing an appeal and affirming a district court’s decision, and “denying” an appeal.

        If a litigant has a final judgment from a federal district court, and it properly files a notice of appeal, gets the record ordered from the district court, and files its briefs on time and in the proper form, the Court of Appeals MUST hear the appeal — there’s no such thing as a Court of Appeals “denying” such an appeal of properly perfected final judgment. (It can decline to consider an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary decision, and it can deny discretionary writ petitions (e.g., mandamus, habeas corpus), but it must “hear” a properly perfected appeal of a final judgment.

        “No idea” where this comes from? Try Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 (“Appeal as of Right — How Taken”) and 4 (“Appeal as of Right — When Taken”).

        Now, when the Court of Appeals “hears” such an appeal, at the “screening” stage (which does indeed involve substantive review of the briefs and record on appeal) the court may summarily affirm / reverse / remand / etc., or it can set the case for oral argument (after which it can affirm, reverse, remand, or all manner of combinations of the above). But whether done summarily or after oral argument, the Court of Appeals has reviewed, “heard,” and decided the appeal. (Cf. SCOTUS, which except for an exceedingly small number of cases has discretion on which cases it chooses to consider.)

        • LKB,

          You are correct, I am not an appelate attorney. I am an attorney, and I was involved in some litigation and appeals. While you are correct that “hearing” an appeal can be decided on the pleadings, the appeals court can also reject an appeal on procedural grounds (and I am at least somewhat aware of federal court and appeals court rules – there are a MILLION reasons a court can deny an appeal based on procedures and local court rules).

          Tell us – what happens if an appeals court just takes the filing, stamps it as received, and does nothing? What is the legal outcome? Or if they get it and just stamp it “denied” (or whatever the “official” language is)?

          Oh, the lower court case stands. Interesting. One might almost think that Courts of Appeal only give serious consideration to cases that present serious issues. Kinda like SCOTUS, eh? Get hung up in legal jargon all you want, but a Circuit Court of Appeals actually “hears” what, maybe 10% of the cases filed?

          While I could parse with you (for HOURS) the significance of the “legal” distinction, please explain the PRACTICAL distinction between SCOTUS denying cert, and a Court of Appeals denying an appeal on procedural grounds, or simply “denying” the appeal without consideration? I get that, as lawyers, we make our living off of those BS “legal” distinctions. I’m now retired; I live in the real world. If there are no hearings, or briefs filed other than the appeal and response, what kind of “hearing” is that?

          I know what “ruling on the pleadings” means – it means the judge (or, more likely, the judge’s clerk) didn’t think there was any “there” there. And that differs from denying cert how, exactly?

        • Lamp:

          Let’s try it this way: I challenge you to show me ONE federal court of appeals case in the past fifty years involving a properly perfected FRAP 3 appeal from a final judgment where the appeal has been “denied.”

          You won’t find any. The judgement may have been summarily affirmed, but the federal courts of appeals simply do not “deny” appeals of that sort. They cannot under FRAP. They have to adjudicate the appeal, and they do.

          Even summary affirmances are on the same briefing / appellate record as a case that has oral argument.

          Further, contrary to your allusion, screening panel cases aren’t decided by law clerks — in our chambers, the only screeners we ever touched were where the judge said, “here’s how this one comes out — draft per this outline,” after which the draft would typically get heavily reworked by the judge. It usually was quicker for the judge to just do the opinion, so that’s what usually happened. (The idea that federal appeals clerks decide cases is a myth.)

          From personal experience, I can also assure you that if a court of appeals case sits around without being decided for more than a prescribed period after being sent to a screening panel or to oral argument, there are all sorts of internal operating procedure safeguards in place. That’s not to say that some courts (*cough* *cough* *ninthcircuit*) haven’t sat on some cases for years for tactical reasons, but those are rare exceptions (and the current SCOTUS would likely do something about those via the Shadow Docket).

    • You are correct, the 9th circuit carrier staggering weight and people behind them. Just a question- I don’t live in CA, I don’t follow these state cases, is the NRA or GOA behind these fights? Where / who is funding the 2A in this one?

    • muckraker,

      So . . . he should suck himself?? Seems like an appropriate activity for that little s***weasel.

      • I can’t stand him or the dirtbag before him, Becerra. Partisan hacks just like that clown in New York Alvin Bragg.

        • muckraker,

          It’s KKKalifornia – you know, that so-called “state” (open-air insane asylum) that not only elected that gibbering moron Gavin Gruesome, the Hair Gel King, but then turned down an opportunity to recall his worthless @$$. What the hell do you expect???

          Leaving that state was one of the smartest decisions I ever made – and I LOVE the geographical location commonly called “California” – it’s beautiful. After it implodes, I may move back – should be able to buy property cheap.

  3. Now Gun Control is extra angry just like Gun Control racists got extra angry at the sight of Black Americans and just like nazis got extra angry at the sight of Jews. Only thing that keeps Gun Control from going berserk and knocking down doors is Americans are armed. Tyranical Gun Control zealots have been invited to come and get ’em but they don’t show…party poopers.

  4. There never has been any logic to the roster. Same with licensing and permitting schemes.

    These things are too dangerous for people to have but if you pay this fee and pick from this curated list of obsolete handguns you’re good to go.

    It all sounds like a scheme Boss Hogg or an A-Team villain would cook up. Haphazard, backwoods racketeering.

  5. Hooray for this temporary reprieve from the third branch of government. It will not last very long. California is doomed. It is simply a numbers game with the population. The state is allowing illegal aliens to come there and stay. And give them benefits. Traditionalists and conservatives are simply outnumbered in the state. And as far as Libertarians go, they’re proud of not voting. Hundreds of thousands are migrating out of the state and have been for quite some time now.

    California will simply implement its own version of “massive resistance”. Which is what Virginia did in the 1950s, after the Brown versus the Board of Education case. When the “Old Dominion” simply shut down, the entire public school system in the state. California can’t shut down all of the gun stores. But they can certainly make it extremely difficult for them to do business. Or perhaps they will shut down all the gun stores in the state???

    I have yet to see any limit the tyrants in the state of California, will go in order to stop people, from exercising their second amendment civil rights.

  6. Gonna be a whole lot of bummed cops who wont be able to triple up their money on “used” pistols at Calguns.net if this holds up.

      • Not entirely inaccurate unfortunately, exaggerated but it is an issue over there. NYC police have their own issues re permits as I recall.

    • Yep. Also, Benitez has at least two (maybe three) 2A opinions that were remanded by SCOTUS back to the 9th Circus, who promptly punted it back to Benitez (more for delay than any belief that he would change his opinion after Bruen). I think that tactic will come back and bite them HARD in the @$$, because it will give Benitez a chance to tailor his opinion further in light of Thomas’ guidance to rely on ‘text, history, and tradition’.

      At least until the Leftists can outlast the current SCOTUS. PRAY for the continued good health of Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett – and that the Left’s street-monkey shock troops in Antifa don’t murder one or more of them.

      • Well no worse than NY about 5-6 months ago so till the next appearance for them and see what our circuit decided from yesterday whenever that is announced.

  7. The System looked at the facts presented to them and determined the infringement
    to to U S constitution was unobtainable and let a “Judge “rulevit Victory For The People. That’s not it is or was ever meant to be before it all started out. “THEY” Give us half carrotts.
    I Want Someone to Explain to me what FREEDOM is in America?
    You have the Freedom to Own a dog, you’ve just got to get the citys Tags put on it. LMFAO like double time. Freedom. Any thing you do,or own has to have some .gov’s permission to do it.
    LOL just today a friend was planning a future kayak trip, river he chose was not “navigable waters ” I told him that we could be charged with trespassing, doubtfull however, as normally just passing through nobody gives a shit. I said “Yeah that’s all fine and dandy, but let’s just say we are crossing bridge X and a LAw Enforcement OfFicEr orders us to stop because we are or might be trespassing on private property and do you have agunm,( and who the fck wouldn’t?) hmmm Armed Private Property, No Permission Slip From land Owner, hmm Felony, cant have gunms, .Ohh Yeah Baby.
    Friend said fuck em theyd have to get the helicopters.

  8. While I agree with the Judge’s ruling about California’s list, there is nothing wrong with a number of old designs when it comes to self defense. Guns are not like personal electronics!

    • The point wasn’t that the older guns would not be suitable for defense. The point was the back door method and deception used by the California government to apply what is a blatant unconstitutional ban and restriction of the right by degrading it to a privilege one needs to basically beg the government to exercise.

  9. Its not a surprise that Kamala would lie, its what she has always done. Kamala and Joe are the same, both pathological liars.

  10. if the calif gov’t was so invested into microstamping why wasn’t it implemented in LEO Guns first? hmm. Bit them in the ass for it didn’t it?

  11. “if the calif gov’t was so invested into microstamping why wasn’t it implemented in LEO Guns first? hmm. Bit them in the ass for it didn’t it?”

    Not yet.

  12. @Walter E Beverly III
    “While most cases appealed are “reviewed”, MOST are never heard.”

    As is so often the case, we are dealing with “words”, and dual meanings. Words do have meaning, but context is important. ‘You say potato, and I say pototo.’

    Word context is also important when discussing “inflation”. So it is with this string about “hearing”. It is a matter of “know your audience”. Also important, is that a tricky concept be understandable by non-specialists (a chronic problem with a war between experts as a jury trial).

    Trying to reduce a technical term into general patois means that the non-specialist will make decisions regarding how they understand the general term.

    Taken on the whole, “hearing” means trial, means oral testimony, means “argument” before the judge. “I demand my day in court” means active trial, or argument. That is the most common understanding of “hearing.”

    So, we have it that LKB is correct, as is Lamp, depending on context.

    • Sam, I disagree. It seems that all cases appealed are heard (or reviewed) by at least one member of the Appellate Court. IN legal terms, “hearing” does not necessarily mean a “trial, means oral testimony, etc.

      • “IN legal terms, “hearing” does not necessarily mean a “trial, means oral testimony, etc.”

        Precisely as I noted; context is everything. In common parlance, “hearing” means spoken words. In separate, distinct, different context, both LKB and Lamp are correct. Restricted to only one context, LKB is correct, and Lamp wrong.

        • Sam, that is the DIFFERENCE between legal parlance anc common parlance. Read what I wrote. It applies when addressing legal issues. It’s a fine line of distinction.

  13. @Walter E Beverly III
    “Sam, that is the DIFFERENCE between legal parlance anc common parlance.”

    Precisely as I stated, originally; context.

    If the context/parlance is “common”, then lack of oral testimony is representative of a case not receiving a “hearing.”

    If the context/parlance is “legal”, then review without oral testimony is a “hearing”.

    As a legal scholar, I would consider the “legal” understanding of “hearing” to be common. As a commoner, I would consider the “legal” understanding to be gamesmanship of the elites/lawyers, irrelevant to real life. Either way, based on my context, I would be right.

Comments are closed.