Supreme Court rules in favor of firearms owners in major 2nd Amendment case;

[DMC]

btw, instead of double posting, just task kill when prompted to reload the page.

[ElNono]

So then in an effort to abide by SCOTUS ruling in NY, California would prompt groups to sue again by moving the goalpost, voluntarily.

Until struck down, it's enforceable, much like 'good cause' has been. This is no different than Texas passing abortion laws over and over with some sort of new cons utional angle, and then getting them struck down (until the recent Roe ruling).

It's not a novel concept at all.

[DMC]

Conversely, you could argue that:

“The government must affirmatively prove that its firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms,”

Amounts to the new legal standard of review... certainly debatable. Generally, standards include legal tests, and here it would be open ended, so we'll see.

I don't know about conversely, but additionally, perhaps. Equal protection would still be on the table if two people with similar background were treated differently in legal decisions because of the whims of the official. Judges do it all the time but they aren't using moral characteristics and they have leeway.

[DMC]

Until struck down, it's enforceable, much like 'good cause' has been. This is no different than Texas passing abortion laws over and over with some sort of new cons utional angle, and then getting them struck down (until the recent Roe ruling).

It's not a novel concept at all.

Then why change anything? Why not wait for someone to point out NY?

[ElNono]

It started here. You said SCOTUS said "we know best" is legal, but "we know best" was about showing need, not about moral character. I even said Texas has basically the same moral character requirement only in more defined terms.

You said "that's a feature not a bug". If you didn't mean that's something the AG used with intention to get the same end result regardless of the ruling, then you haven't explained exactly what you meant. If you did mean that (I think you did), then you are saying that's California's intent. Otherwise it's not a feature, it's only a possibility.

I think the AG was explicit in highlighting that all other State requirements, including "good moral character", are still cons utional, per that ruling. This is almost verbatim to what he wrote. I don't think that was casual.

But the AG can't pass state laws, neither can the sheriffs, so if there's going to be any new or amended requirements, they'll have to come from the California State legislature. If I'll be a betting man, I'll bet that's coming next.

If it's a feature then it's built in with that in mind. Else what's the feature?

What I meant is that States deciding what are the arbitrary requirements to obtain a permit is a feature. It largely allows them to regulate permits issuance via State law. Just like in the 'good cause' case, they might pass requirements that might be found uncons utional at some point, but that still requires lengthy litigation to get them off the books.

[ElNono]

I don't know about conversely, but additionally, perhaps. Equal protection would still be on the table if two people with similar background were treated differently in legal decisions because of the whims of the official. Judges do it all the time but they aren't using moral characteristics and they have leeway.

Not sure why you think they would threat people differently to begin with.

[ElNono]

I don't know about conversely, but additionally, perhaps. Equal protection would still be on the table if two people with similar background were treated differently in legal decisions because of the whims of the official. Judges do it all the time but they aren't using moral characteristics and they have leeway.

Not sure why you think they would treat people differently to begin with.

[ElNono]

Then why change anything? Why not wait for someone to point out NY?

Good cause was ruled uncons utional, that implies things will have to change.

All these States felt compelled to reduce or eliminate the issuance of concealed carry, 'good cause' was a vehicle to do so. If they didn't feel they needed that, they wouldn't have had it in the first place, nor fought to keep it.

So one would have to conclude they'll just have to find a different vehicle, as none of those States made any mentions of substantive changes to gun regulation policy plans.

[Th'Pusher]

EN the most patient man on the internet.

[Winehole23]

Good cause was ruled uncons utional, that implies things will have to change.

All these States felt compelled to reduce or eliminate the issuance of concealed carry, 'good cause' was a vehicle to do so. If they didn't feel they needed that, they wouldn't have had it in the first place, nor fought to keep it.

So one would have to conclude they'll just have to find a different vehicle, as none of those States made any mentions of substantive changes to gun regulation policy plans.

Maine changed its educational funding guidelines from prohibiting religious instruction on the public dime to prohibiting funding discrimination against LGBTQIA+. Nothing preventing an analogous pivot in verbiage in NY.

[TSA]

Good cause was ruled uncons utional, that implies things will have to change.

All these States felt compelled to reduce or eliminate the issuance of concealed carry, 'good cause' was a vehicle to do so. If they didn't feel they needed that, they wouldn't have had it in the first place, nor fought to keep it.

So one would have to conclude they'll just have to find a different vehicle, as none of those States made any mentions of substantive changes to gun regulation policy plans.

Massive Trove of Gun Owners’ Private Information Leaked by California Attorney General

California gun owners have been put at risk by the Attorney General’s office after a new dashboard leaked their personal information.

The California Department of Justice’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal went live on Monday with publicly-accessible files that include identifying information for those who have concealed carry permits. The leaked information includes the person’s full name, home address, date of birth, and date their permit was issued. The data also shows the type of permit issued, indicating if the permit holder is a member of law enforcement or a judge.

The Reload reviewed a copy of the Lost Angeles County database and found 244 judge permits listed in the database. The files included the home addresses, full names, and dates of birth for all of them. The same was true for seven custodial officers, 63 people with a place of employment permit, and 420 reserve officers.

2,891 people in Los Angeles County with standard licenses also had their information compromised by the leak, though the database appears to include some duplicate entries as well.

A video reviewed by The Reload shows the databases with detailed information were initially available for download via a button on the website’s mapping feature. They appeared to have been removed from public access by Tuesday afternoon and replaced with spreadsheets without the individualized identifying information.

The office of Attorney General Rob Bonta (D.) did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

https://thereload.com/new-california...e-information/

[ElNono]

Massive Trove of Gun Owners’ Private Information Leaked by California Attorney General

California gun owners have been put at risk by the Attorney General’s office after a new dashboard leaked their personal information.

The California Department of Justice’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal went live on Monday with publicly-accessible files that include identifying information for those who have concealed carry permits. The leaked information includes the person’s full name, home address, date of birth, and date their permit was issued. The data also shows the type of permit issued, indicating if the permit holder is a member of law enforcement or a judge.

The Reload reviewed a copy of the Lost Angeles County database and found 244 judge permits listed in the database. The files included the home addresses, full names, and dates of birth for all of them. The same was true for seven custodial officers, 63 people with a place of employment permit, and 420 reserve officers.

2,891 people in Los Angeles County with standard licenses also had their information compromised by the leak, though the database appears to include some duplicate entries as well.

A video reviewed by The Reload shows the databases with detailed information were initially available for download via a button on the website’s mapping feature. They appeared to have been removed from public access by Tuesday afternoon and replaced with spreadsheets without the individualized identifying information.

The office of Attorney General Rob Bonta (D.) did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

https://thereload.com/new-california...e-information/

Not sure what that has to do with what you replied to, but OK...

[DMC]

I think the AG was explicit in highlighting that all other State requirements, including "good moral character", are still cons utional, per that ruling. This is almost verbatim to what he wrote. I don't think that was casual.

But the AG can't pass state laws, neither can the sheriffs, so if there's going to be any new or amended requirements, they'll have to come from the California State legislature. If I'll be a betting man, I'll bet that's coming next.

i.e. speculation

What I meant is that States deciding what are the arbitrary requirements to obtain a permit is a feature. It largely allows them to regulate permits issuance via State law. Just like in the 'good cause' case, they might pass requirements that might be found uncons utional at some point, but that still requires lengthy litigation to get them off the books.

But double standards are easy to prove. If California is applying double standards, even California know eventually a black man would have the same qualifications as a white man, yet the black man was denied using different standards. That would suit the out of some prominent CA lawyers.

[Th'Pusher]

i.e. speculation


But double standards are easy to prove. If California is applying double standards, even California know eventually a black man would have the same qualifications as a white man, yet the black man was denied using different standards. That would suit the out of some prominent CA lawyers.

The state simply needs to apply the arbitrary standards equally. This is no different the the arbitrary moral character clause CA has today which is why this ruling is inconsequential. It taken you two days and you still haven’t been able to grasp the most basic of concepts. Your fellow cultists is posting random posts that have nothing to do with the subject. Just bail.

[ElNono]

i.e. speculation

Sure. But, again, I've yet to see a public statement from California officials where they state their stance on gun regulation has changed. That, IMO, it's a clear indication where this is going.

But double standards are easy to prove. If California is applying double standards, even California know eventually a black man would have the same qualifications as a white man, yet the black man was denied using different standards. That would suit the out of some prominent CA lawyers.

I didn't mention any double standards, so not sure why do you keep pushing this. An arbitrarily high bar can be enforced equally.

[ElNono]

Maine changed its educational funding guidelines from prohibiting religious instruction on the public dime to prohibiting funding discrimination against LGBTQIA+. Nothing preventing an analogous pivot in verbiage in NY.

Exactly. 'good cause' was a tool towards an end. As long as the end remains the same, it's all about finding a new tool.

[Winehole23]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ntrol-00042417

[Thread]

"Who's the wild man now!!!"

[TSA]

[Blake]

MOAR!

[Thread]

That great, wonderful man President Trump made this happen.
I love this man with all me heart.

But, how, how did he make this happen?
tee, hee.
I'm glad you asked that question.
& here is how...
He dumped Clinton side of the road, hunted three Justices who would stand up and stand fast. That's how.
The long & the short of it?
Trump President.
Not Clinton.

"Glory, glory hallelujah...His truth is marching on."

[ElNono]

Makes sense

[Winehole23]

NY passes new gun control law

[Winehole23]

[url]

[Thread]

NY passes new gun control law

President Trump made them do that!!!