Is this a "Taking"? (CA gun law)

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post Tue, Nov 22 2016 6:32 PM by ca19lawyer2. 2 replies.
  • Mon, Nov 21 2016 4:27 PM

    Is this a "Taking"? (CA gun law)

    I own a revolutionary war era officers horse pistol in very good condition. As a rare collectable antique it is worth several hundred dollars.

    A new gun law takes effect in CA in Jan 2017 that requires all previously exempt antique black powder weapons to be registered with the State, and issued with a serial number that must be stamped or engraved in a clearly visible location and manner.

    To the antique market this is a defacement, and the value will plummet by at least 75%

    I know there have been cases where the owners of property lost value due to government action and were able to successfully argue that the loss was a "taking". Anyone have an opinion as to whether that might work here?

     

    Richard

  • Tue, Nov 22 2016 7:17 AM In reply to

    Re: Is this a "Taking"? (CA gun law)

    RickInNoCal:
    A new gun law takes effect in CA in Jan 2017 that requires all previously exempt antique black powder weapons to be registered with the State, and issued with a serial number that must be stamped or engraved in a clearly visible location and manner.

    I know who told you that, but it is not true.  First, the legislation signed by the governor, AB 857, was targetted at those who make their own guns at home and only applies to guns assembled after 1968.  It still excludes antiques manufactured before 1899.  Second, even if an ID number was required, it's microstamped internally -- on interior surface or internal working parts, where it is not visible.

  • Tue, Nov 22 2016 6:32 PM In reply to

    Re: Is this a "Taking"? (CA gun law)

    RickInNoCal:
    A new gun law takes effect in CA in Jan 2017 that requires all previously exempt antique black powder weapons to be registered with the State, and issued with a serial number that must be stamped or engraved in a clearly visible location and manner.

    Please cite the specific law that you think imposes this requirement.

     

    RickInNoCal:
    I know there have been cases where the owners of property lost value due to government action and were able to successfully argue that the loss was a "taking".

    Can you cite any such case?  If not, how do you purport to "know" these cases exist?

     

    RickInNoCal:
    Anyone have an opinion as to whether that might work here?

    The only case I've ever heard of involving an alleged taking of personal property is a case called Andrus v. Allard.  I've never actually read the case, but my understanding is that holding essentially makes it almost impossible to prove a taking of personal property -- even if the governmental regulation renders the property without ANY economic value.

Page 1 of 1 (3 items) | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community