Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Georgia case: lessor of land from city (in state with pre-emption) cannot ban firearms | Main | One way of solving a problem »

New California gun laws

Posted by David Hardy · 12 October 2019 12:49 PM

Fox News is reporting. I don't have time to look up the laws themselves, but this report of them raises big constitutional questions (other than the obvious 2A and due process ones). Does the law make failure to turn over firearms a criminal offense? If not, where is the probable cause for a search? "Probable cause" assumes a crime. The provision that a warrant may be issued with the order, to become effective if the gun owner refuses to turn over a gun, raises questions of anticipatory search warrants. Those were a big issue some years ago, I forget how it turned out, but they weren't in favor with the courts. The idea was to issue a search warrant over a future event, to become effective (without further restore to a court) if something happened. E.g., here is the evidence we have of drug dealing (not quite probable cause). We're going to send in an informant. This warrant to immediately search the house will become effective only if the informant comes out and reports he made a drug buy inside.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

FWB | October 12, 2019 1:52 PM | Reply

I wish folks could read English and follow the grammar. The 4th Amendment DOES NOT allow a search based on probable cause. Probable cause is required to obtain a warrant and a warrant is REQUIRED to conduct a search, ANY search. And the 4th applies wholly to ALL levels of government regardless of s2pid judges.

Basic education about the grammar and punctuation of the 4th tells us that the first and second clauses are DEPENDENT not independent because they are separated by a comma, not a semicolon or period. It is sad that the judiciary is so poorly educated. What is sadder is that the judiciary decided in 1833 that the 4th didn't apply to the states thus opening a door for violations of the People's Rights.

Maybe, just maybe someday folks will learn the language, the law, and then authority of the People over the government.

Anonymous | October 15, 2019 5:18 PM | Reply

By the time the ACLU says a gun law is a bad idea you know you are doing something wrong.

Leave a comment