Two Recent Judicial Decisions Counter One Another

On the one hand, the courts struck down the Federal ban on interstate handgun transfers.

On the other hand, California’s ban on new semiautomatic handguns that don’t stamp identifying information on the cartridge was upheld by a U.S. judge.

Am I stumbling over the obvious, here, or do these two rulings line up to accomplish the following:

1. Provides a very serious incentive for gun manufacturers to leave California and their blitheringly idiotic laws.

2. Provides yet another means by which Californians can readily obtain firearms from another state.

If I'm reading this right, California just potentially shut down ALL revenue from firearms manufacturing within their borders while doing absolutely NOTHING to curb crime within their borders.

Fortunately, they haven't actually managed to totally deprive the right of their citizens to protect life, limb, and property.

Yet...

Wasn't it California that also had a) it's gun roster upheld and b) the law enforcement exemption to their gun roster upheld?

A quick fact-check makes me think it was part of the Calguns lawsuit you reference.

We do need a tin-hat smiley, because this seems to be part of the CSGV/Mothers Demand/Bloomberg "battle plan" - if we cannot outright confiscate their guns we'll make illegal all the stuff neccessary to make a gun work.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Wasn't it California that also had a) it's gun roster upheld and b) the law enforcement exemption to their gun roster upheld?

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know.

A quick fact-check makes me think it was part of the Calguns lawsuit you reference.

Click to expand...

I'll check it out.

We do need a tin-hat smiley, because this seems to be part of the CSGV/Mothers Demand/Bloomberg "battle plan" - if we cannot outright confiscate their guns we'll make illegal all the stuff neccessary to make a gun work.

Click to expand...

True. Fortunately, they only apply in California, and I haven't lived there for 26 years!