CA Gov Newsom signs law to mandatory background checks or gun parts

[Grizzly Adams]

Are you saying every law should be written to cover every possible circumstance and detail that the law covers?



Say that

I am saying that the law must be written in such a manner that an average person can know what conduct is prohibited. This is not a concept alien to the American justice system, as demonstrated by the principle of lenity and void for vagueness doctrine.

 

[vegas giants]

I am saying that the law must be written in such a manner that an average person can know what conduct is prohibited. This is not a concept alien to the American justice system, as demonstrated by the principle of lenity and void for vagueness doctrine.

I see nowhere in law or the constitution where that is required

 

[bongsaway]

Any peace of plastic or metal that looks like is could be used by a gun, and any plastic or metal part the someone could mill or drill to make into a gun. So ya all plastic and aluminum blocks.

Once again, right to the extremes...and false.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I see nowhere in law or the constitution where that is required

Never set eyes on the fifth amendment's due process clause, eh? Or the fourteenth's similar clause, for that matter?

Furthermore, the notion that a criminal statute is obliged to put the public on notice as to what actions are prohibited is a foundational concept in the law and is so old I couldn't even find a reference to when it first appeared. My guess would be somewhere around the time of Hammurabi. It is possibly one of the most important safeguards against tyranny, as it helps prevent arbitrary imprisonment. If one is in favor of discarding it, one must first present an safeguard that is at least as effective as a replacement. What is your alternative safeguard to arbitrary imprisonment that is at least as effective as the rule of lenity and the void for vagueness doctrine?

 

[vegas giants]

Never set eyes on the fifth amendment's due process clause, eh? Or the fourteenth's similar clause, for that matter?

Furthermore, the notion that a criminal statute is obliged to put the public on notice as to what actions are prohibited is a foundational concept in the law and is so old I couldn't even find a reference to when it first appeared. My guess would be somewhere around the time of Hammurabi. It is possibly one of the most important safeguards against tyranny, as it helps prevent arbitrary imprisonment. If one is in favor of discarding it, one must first present an safeguard that is at least as effective as a replacement. What is your alternative safeguard to arbitrary imprisonment that is at least as effective as the rule of lenity and the void for vagueness doctrine?

There is no way to include every possible circumstance that a law will cover. It can not be done. That is why we have the courts to interpret the law

 

[Grizzly Adams]

There is no way to include every possible circumstance that a law will cover. It can not be done. That is why we have the courts to interpret the law

The notion of notice has been around for centuries, probably millennia. Your insistence that effective notice of prohibited conduct cannot be achieved is belied by an uncountable number of years of the law doing exactly that.

Were your fantasy true, we would not have the rule of lenity or the void for vagueness doctrine, as the court's response to an allegation that the law isn't clear enough would be "sit down, shut up, and you'll know when you broke the law because we'll tell you." That's a garbage system, and I'm glad we don't have anything like it.

 

[vegas giants]

The notion of notice has been around for centuries, probably millennia. Your insistence that effective notice of prohibited conduct cannot be achieved is belied by an uncountable number of years of the law doing exactly that.

Were your fantasy true, we would not have the rule of lenity or the void for vagueness doctrine, as the court's response to an allegation that the law isn't clear enough would be "sit down, shut up, and you'll know when you broke the law because we'll tell you." That's a garbage system, and I'm glad we don't have anything like it.

The standard you refer to is the reasonable person standard.


This law meets that standard. If there is a rare exception where it does not then that single conviction would not stand

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The standard you refer to is the reasonable person standard.


This law meets that standard. If there is a rare exception where it does not then that single conviction would not stand

So... the law DOES have to put a person on notice that their conduct is prohibited? If you agree, why have you been stating the exact opposite?

 

[vegas giants]

So... the law DOES have to put a person on notice that their conduct is prohibited? If you agree, why have you been stating the exact opposite?

They do not have to list every possible circumstance the law will cover.


That is a fact



Do you disagree with that fact?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

They do not have to list every possible circumstance the law will cover.


That is a fact



Do you disagree with that fact?

If you mean it is sufficient to state, "murder is the intentional killing of another person and shall be unlawful" and have it cover murder by shooting and strangulation and poisoning and drowning and stabbing and stabbing by knife and stabbing by pencil and stabbing by screwdriver and stabbing by screwdriver in the eye and stabbing by screwdriver in the chest and stabbing by a flathead screwdriver in the chest, then no I don't disagree. A broad law is not necessarily vague.

However, a law that is left to judges to determine what acts are prohibited is vague and should be discarded.

 

[vegas giants]

If you mean it is sufficient to state, "murder is the intentional killing of another person and shall be unlawful" and have it cover murder by shooting and strangulation and poisoning and drowning and stabbing and stabbing by knife and stabbing by pencil and stabbing by screwdriver and stabbing by screwdriver in the eye and stabbing by screwdriver in the chest and stabbing by a flathead screwdriver in the chest, then no I don't disagree. A broad law is not necessarily vague.

However, a law that is left to judges to determine what acts are prohibited is vague and should be discarded.

That is your legal opinion. This law is not vague in my legal opinion

 

[Grizzly Adams]

That is your legal opinion. This law is not vague in my legal opinion

When your response to every question as to what the law will cover is "the judge will decide," then the law is vague. Even you don't know what is covered. You go even further and suggest expert testimony can be used to determine who has broken the law. If experts are required to determine the bounds of the law, you cannot say an average person can determine what it prohibits.

 

[vegas giants]

When your response to every question as to what the law will cover is "the judge will decide," then the law is vague. Even you don't know what is covered. You go even further and suggest expert testimony can be used to determine who has broken the law. If experts are required to determine the bounds of the law, you cannot say an average person can determine what it prohibits.

I know what it prohibits. I am a reasonable person. If it looks and acts as a precursor then it is one. Its crystal clear to.me

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I know what it prohibits. I am a reasonable person. If it looks and acts as a precursor then it is one. Its crystal clear to.me

What does a "precursor" look and act like? At what point does a block of metal stop being a block of metal and become an "unfinished receiver?"

 

[vegas giants]

What does a "precursor" look and act like? At what point does a block of metal stop being a block of metal and become an "unfinished receiver?"

When a reasonable person could determine it would likely be used for a gun. I can do that easily. So can virtually every gun owner.


Could you?

 

[vegas giants]

Then it should be easy for you to answer the question with something more detailed than "I know it when I see it."


Maybe. Maybe not. And that's the problem.

I could easily. So could any reasonable person. It is spelled out clearly enough that any reasonable person can determine what is a precursor. And you know it

 

[Grizzly Adams]

When a reasonable person could determine it would likely be used for a gun. I can do that easily. So can virtually every gun owner.

Then it should be easy for you to describe it in a manner that isn't so vague as "I know it when I see it."

Could you?

I don't know.

 

[vegas giants]

Then it should be easy for you to describe it in a manner that isn't so vague as "I know it when I see it."


I don't know.

It isnt vague. It is crystal clear. Any part that a reasonable person would consider a precursor is a precursor. Its actually pretty well laid out

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It isnt vague. It is crystal clear. Any part that a reasonable person would consider a precursor is a precursor. Its actually pretty well laid out

Webster's, I submit to you the very definition of "tautology."

Your "clarification" is nothing of the sort. At what point does a person with a block of metal break the law? There must be an objective answer to this question. If you don't know the answer, that's fine.

 

[vegas giants]

Webster's, I submit to you the very definition of "tautology."

Your "clarification" is nothing of the sort. At what point does a person with a block of metal break the law? There must be an objective answer to this question. If you don't know the answer, that's fine.

Here is the answer. When a reasonable person would determine that the piece of metal is a gun precursor. This is common practice in law.


Let's look at some possible testimony

Where is this part marketed?
Gun shows, gun magazines, gun websites

What else do you sell?
Gun parts

Can you provide a customer who will testify this is only used for something other than a gun?
Nope

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Here is the answer. When a reasonable person would determine that the piece of metal is a gun precursor.

So... no answer. Got it. It's okay that you don't have an answer.

 

[vegas giants]

So... no answer. Got it. It's okay that you don't have an answer.

See my previous post. Reasonable person standard. The person who sold it would get crushed under testimony

 

[jdog21]

I thought the government would have appealed it the minute it got 86d

86d huh, are you a fellow electrical worker?

 

[TurtleDude]

86d huh, are you a fellow electrical worker?

nah I used to date a waitress and my wife held just about every restaurant position, from being a server to a chef. They used that term all the time.

Manager-what happened to the guy in table 21's order

Waitress-it looked vile so we 86d it and did a new burger so there was a bit of a wait.

 

[Casper]

Gavin Newsom signed a slew of new gun regulations into law yesterday.
One of the bills signed was AB 879.
Bill Text - AB-879 Firearms.


You will need a "firearm precursor parts license" from the state to sell a gun part that the CA DOJ deems a precursor part. Also makes it illegal to sell any precursor part to someone under the age of 21 and all transactions have to go through a FFL and a background check will need to be done, $1 if you have a gun registered to the address that's listed on your drivers license and $15 if you do not (which from then on you'll be on record and any new purchases and you can then use the $1 for the DROS). Doesn't go into effect until 2024.

So anyone who wants to customize there firearm they already own or wants to replace a broken part will be subjected to extra fees and wait times.

Registered, I like that word, tells you why their law will be a bust. Need parts that bad, go to Nevada ...road trip!