The CA government thinks it can do whatever it pleases. However, they are pissing more and more people off. I truly believe they will go too far and eventually lose the respect and vote of the people.

There are many persons who believe all the leftist propaganda, but not everyone does.

quote:

Originally posted by still_bill:
Does this mean that leo will no longer be able to have auto loader firearms as the weapons can not be made?

The stupid roster does not apply to LEOs.

People need to understand that all this is escalating further in California because Stallone convinced and continues to cousel Schwarzenegger that the Lawgiver II DNA micro-stamp technology from the "Judge Dredd" movie he starred in was doable but they needed to start with cartridge micro-stamping to walk it along. Schwarzenegger then had the California legislature watch the movie and they were sold too. Now their courts have been served the same "viable research".



Subtle hint to all the Cali folk involved in this brilliant pursuit... It's a freaking Sci-Fi prop you morons and not possible for any foreseeable future time frame and neither is cartridge micro-stamping in a meaningful repeatable way! Good grief!

At this rate, the next law will require Californians to submit at least 8 oz of their spit to ammo manufacturers to be included in the loaded bullets and casings so that all their ammo is "user DNA marked" and can be traced using the DNA registries like 23 and Me.

When I saw this earlier today I noticed the opinion was unanimous.

The reason is found in the below quotation. In essence, the whole court overturned the Court of Appeal by using established rules of statutory construction.

It was not about the wisdom of microstamping but about how statutes are supposed to be construed under California law.

By the way, they interpreted the issue in a very neutral and legal way - the way that conservatives want judges to decide cases. They did not legislate from the bench but interpreted the law as it was given by the legislature. How does one interpret two conflicting statutes?

Here's the quote:

NSSF has not brought a constitutional challenge to the statute , nor has it petitioned for a writ of mandate against the Department of Justice for improperly certifying the availability of dual placement microstamping technology (and we express no view on the merits of those possibilities) . Instead, NSSF has invoked the impossibility of compliance as a basis for voiding the statute. But Civil Code section 3531’s maxim that “[t]he law never requires impossibilities” is an interpretive aid that occasionally authorizes an exception to a statutory mandate in accordance with the Legislature’s intent behind the mandate. The maxim has never been recognized, and we do not recognize it today, as a ground for invalidating a statutory mandate altogether. Link (page 9) [Emphasis Added]

The National Shooting Sports Foundation and others can effectively challenge the law but not the way they tried. I have used California's "Maxims of Jurisprudence" for a few decades and I know that they are mere aids to statutory interpretation to help a court implement the intent of the legislature.

In a more common parlance, it may be that the legislature tried to screw would be gun owners but that was Okay for them to do unless you tell us how their action violates a constitutional right or as otherwise stated above. The NSSF asked the court to invaidate an entire statute instead of just using a Maxim to aid in its interpretation.

The NSSF took a shot at a challenge but cited only "out of state" cases to say why California law should follow other parts of the country in how they interpret statutory conflicts. The California Supreme Court declined.

Other basis to challenge the statute remain.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
They should make it mandatory that all Californians must hold their breath for an hour straight per day to reduce green house gas emissions. Impossible, due to current human physical limitations? Too bad, the law IS the law.

Dude! Don't give them any ideas!

quote:

Originally posted by still_bill:
Does this mean that leo will no longer be able to have auto loader firearms as the weapons can not be made?

On the off chance that this was a serious question, No, it doesn't mean that. The roster, like most of the horse feces gun control nonsense that comes out of Sacramento doesn't apply to LEOs. They are exempt.

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
They should make it mandatory that all LEFTIST Californians must hold their breath for an hour straight per day to reduce green house gas emissions. Impossible, due to current human physical limitations? Too bad, the law IS the law.

Dude! Don't give them any ideas!

I think it is a fine idea with the above one word addition. YMMV.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
Why not, they clearly ignore the laws of economics.

Maybe Not, they managed to vote THEMSELVES a 3% Raise!