Where & how to fight, undermine, overturn AB 1263, 2571 + SB 704?!? These can NOT be allowed to stand.

[ikeo1]

Ahhh another insecure liberal who is a liar cant believe you are a "contributer" on this site. Not even worth discussing anything further with you. Thank you for working with politicians as you claim signing these crazy laws in our state.

I think this kind of talk only hurts. There's people that try to do something and run into roadblocks and why they try to work around it it's not always clean. I wish people understood that changing things is hard, especially when we're the minority. Debasing someone as a "liberal" what does that really do? He has the contributor badge because he provided a lot of history and information. You'll see that designated to people who put thought into their posts, right or left.

The main criteria is critical thoughtful posts consistently over time. This is so that they can edit their posts because they take time to write things and not just long posts whining about this or that, but actual thoughts. It's a free badge where you also help people around the site. We like to reward people who contribute back to the site in different ways not just with $. The goal is to bring people together and I have to ask myself when I read posts, do they consistently look like what i see above or do they genuinely believe their position and respect others. If they're disrespectful to you in a crude way, then i get it, but decorum is allowed and encouraged.

Ever since the war started up again, the rage politics started heating up because marketing is on full point. We have a singular focus with some things on the peripheral because you guys wanted it, but I want to keep the admin part low. You guys will argue, but keep in mind we have new folks coming in all the time. Our rate is still 3k per month. Keep it civil..

 

[treelogger]

Our rate is still 3k per month. Keep it civil..

That's 3K people a month, who come here and find that "the gun community" consists largely of angry, misinformed people who are not capable of thinking straight. And with the knots in their reasoning they propose crazy things, like starting a lawsuit because the 11% tax or the ID requirement is "unconstitutional" (hint: it only is once a court finds so), or proposing to start a violent uprising, or suggesting breaking the law (every time someone says "concealed means concealed" for example). And who can only react with insults when they don't like counter-arguments.

The problem is that this creates a (not completely wrong) impression that gun people are on average misogynist, racist, disorderly, anarchist, violent, and worst of all dumb. From that it is only a small intellectual jump to reach the conclusion that guns must be restricted, because the people who have them are not worthy of them, and dangerous. And that is exactly the wrong conclusion to reach, even if it is partly based on a valid observation.

But the cure for that is not censorship. Sure, we could have Ikeo go around and delete all posts that are not lily-white (or appropriately rainbow colored). That would just increase the temperature of the already boiling pot. The correct thing to demonstrate is that on average the gun community is reasonable, law-abiding, educated or willing to learn, and capable of polite interaction with the rest of society. And fiercely supporting freedom for everyone, in particular the freedom to own and use guns.

 

[Deleted member 31158]

Is CRPA fighting 1263?

I couldn't see anything on their website saying they are looking for plaintiffs or that there is a challenge coming.

Did the state use ChatGPT to find the perfect loophole here that isn't challengeable?

I bought a bunch of stuff in December, so haven't tried to buy any parts recently, but I saw a local FFL say they don't accept parts at all, but can order them for you.

I think I saw some other states now trying to do the same, hopefully there will be a national level challenge to this soon.

Not to my knowledge. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they choose to leave it alone. Why? Because it's a boon to gun stores. Make it so hard to get stuff online that people just start buying from stores. On top of that, the stores can charge ridiculous fees to 'transfer' items and make even more $. The stores love this and the barrel law because it brings them more business. CRPA is just another politically driven organization, and we all know $$ is the root of everything, so why touch a law that stores love?

 

[nakatomi]

If these laws survive it probably won’t be because they’re strong. It will be because the challenge against them is framed wrong.

Courts don’t care if something is frustrating, expensive or even politically motivated. What they tend to care about is whether something meaningfully interferes with a protected right in a way that has no historical analogue.

So instead of arguing “this is basically a ban” or “this is unfair or intentional,” a stronger angle might be asking at what point restricting access to parts interferes with the ability to maintain a functional firearm & whether that can be shown with actual evidence like availability, geo access, cost barriers & delays.

Because if the argument is just “it’s harder,” that probably loses.

But if the argument becomes that this creates a real, measurable barrier to keeping commonly owned arms functional, that is a different conversation legally.

Also on the compliance vs resistance point, I don’t think people are excited to comply. I think they are reacting to risk. Individuals take on legal risk personally, while the state takes on almost none. That naturally pushes behavior toward compliance whether people agree with the law or not.

If anything that creates another problem. Fewer clean test cases, fewer strong plaintiffs & weaker challenges overall.

What would a strong winnable challenge actually need in terms of facts, plaintiffs & legal theory.

Because without that we are just venting, which is understandable but it does not move anything forward.

 

[treelogger]

(about the CRPA):

However, I wouldn't be surprised if they choose to leave it alone. Why? Because it's a boon to gun stores.

That makes me think of a related question. Does anyone know whether Cal-FFL is still an active organization? Like the FPC, they are one of the organizations founded by Brandon Combs as a spinoff from / competitor to / new scam in the style of the Calguns Foundation. The last time they were involved in anything legal seems to be about 2020. Their web site is not up, and they have not filed form 990 in a long time.

If they are still active, and Brandon is still using them to make bank, that would pretty much guarantee that the FPC will also not touch this with a 10-foot pole.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Jackson v SF was a 9th circuit case which upheld San Francisco's ban on hollow point ammunition. The opinion was written by Sandra Ikuta, a conservative nominated by Bush Jr. Ikuta and the court state that because hollow points are available outside San Francisco for people to freely buy and bring into the city/county that the ban on sales within SF did not violate the 2nd amendment. Obviously this is only the 9th circuit and not the Supreme Court but it does say that a challenge would likely have to go to the supreme court. But simply making things annoying or more expensive to get unfortunately is not likely to have a lot of legal standing.

 

[nakatomi]

Jackson v SF was a 9th circuit case which upheld San Francisco's ban on hollow point ammunition. The opinion was written by Sandra Ikuta, a conservative nominated by Bush Jr. Ikuta and the court state that because hollow points are available outside San Francisco for people to freely buy and bring into the city/county that the ban on sales within SF did not violate the 2nd amendment. Obviously this is only the 9th circuit and not the Supreme Court but it does say that a challenge would likely have to go to the supreme court. But simply making things annoying or more expensive to get unfortunately is not likely to have a lot of legal standing.

Jackson v SF (2014) did say that making something harder to access like banning local sales could still be allowed under the 2A. BUT that was based on an older legal framework. In 2022 SCOTUS with the Bruen case rejected that approach. Courts now focus on whether a law is consistent with historical firearm regulation not whether it is merely inconvenient. SO... Jackson is not as strong of a precedent as it used to be.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Jackson v SF (2014) did say that making something harder to access like banning local sales could still be allowed under the 2A. BUT that was based on an older legal framework. In 2022 SCOTUS with the Bruen case rejected that approach. Courts now focus on whether a law is consistent with historical firearm regulation not whether it is merely inconvenient. SO... Jackson is not as strong of a precedent as it used to be.

Fair enough but Heller, Bruen and Hemani also state that regulation inlcluding licensure in order to keep guns away from "unauthorized individuals" was totally constitutional. AB1263 and sb 704 are background checks rather than a total ban. But then of course it's possible that the SC will ultimately decide that barrels, accessories, ammo etc. aren't firearms and can't be subject to background checks or similar regulation to firearms. Or they may not lol. We are at the mercy of whatever the SC feels like doing.

 

[CaptainLevi]

Its false huh? Well I see the results of your timing and prevention really going hand in hand with what you believe and because they are signing/signed these laws into place. How about you show your proof that you working "directly" with them. I want to see logs, conversations, podcasts, interviews, pictures, documents, etc.. anybody can say what you said but I need evidence.

I made a solid argument.. you started with the insult by even considering littering in this state. You insulted commiefornias ecosystem which is already in danger of falling apart.. how dare you add pollution and potentially killing a sea otter that can choke on that tea bag! Dont play victim here .

Man congratulations.. do you want a gold star for the things you own that help you clean out the weeds in your yard?! Lol

I think he worked directly with them to pass it or suggest these new changes LOL

 

[DrJonesUSA]

Z

Thread 'Parts to California.'

Mar 19, 2026

Trying to online shop for a recoil spring for the Walther pdp I just got. No company is shipping to California. Anyone have issues with ordering parts as well? I know an 1263 an 704 is making it difficult but it’s like we are an island right now.

• Zeekari
• Replies: 18
• Forum: General Discussion

G

Thread 'What if I can't sign for my package?'

Mar 19, 2026

Sometimes I work from home and I can catch my delivery driver to sign for packages...some days I have to visit customers.

What happens to my package if I can't sign for it? Does the new law state it has to returned to the shipper or can I pick it up at the UPS/FEDEX hub?

• gregshin
• Replies: 17
• Forum: General Discussion

Obviously these are just two threads involving a handful of people, but initially, this absolutely does NOT sound like "it's merely getting slightly more difficult to get gun parts & accessories."

Most people here seem to completely forget that the Second Amendment is a Constitutionally enshrined RIGHT. We have a RIGHT to purchase guns - and as courts have ruled - ammunition & related parts (such as magazines.)

Adding this level of difficulty which interferes with the exercise of a RIGHT seems like a pretty easy target to me.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Z

Thread 'Parts to California.'

Mar 19, 2026

Trying to online shop for a recoil spring for the Walther pdp I just got. No company is shipping to California. Anyone have issues with ordering parts as well? I know an 1263 an 704 is making it difficult but it’s like we are an island right now.

• Zeekari
• Replies: 18
• Forum: General Discussion

G

Thread 'What if I can't sign for my package?'

Mar 19, 2026

Sometimes I work from home and I can catch my delivery driver to sign for packages...some days I have to visit customers.

What happens to my package if I can't sign for it? Does the new law state it has to returned to the shipper or can I pick it up at the UPS/FEDEX hub?

• gregshin
• Replies: 17
• Forum: General Discussion

Obviously these are just two threads involving a handful of people, but initially, this absolutely does NOT sound like "it's merely getting slightly more difficult to get gun parts & accessories."

Most people here seem to completely forget that the Second Amendment is a Constitutionally enshrined RIGHT. We have a RIGHT to purchase guns - and as courts have ruled - ammunition & related parts (such as magazines.)

Adding this level of difficulty which interferes with the exercise of a RIGHT seems like a pretty easy target to me.

I'm only saying this to play devil's advocate, no one finds these laws more irritating than my I literally just ordered a part from Italy because I couldn't get it shipped to me from someone in the US. But, if the SC has said that background checks and licenses for firearms are legal, and we have a right to firearms, then why not the parts you can make a firearm out of? Again I'm not saying this because I like it, but it's not likely that these laws are going away based on the major SC cases regarding arms.

 

[nakatomi]

Fair enough but Heller, Bruen and Hemani also state that regulation inlcluding licensure in order to keep guns away from "unauthorized individuals" was totally constitutional. AB1263 and sb 704 are background checks rather than a total ban. But then of course it's possible that the SC will ultimately decide that barrels, accessories, ammo etc. aren't firearms and can't be subject to background checks or similar regulation to firearms. Or they may not lol. We are at the mercy of whatever the SC feels like doing.

The real issue is where it starts interfering with the 2A right. Under Bruen it’s not about whether something is a ban it’s whether there’s a historical analogue.

Is there any tradition of requiring background checks or going through a middleman just to get common parts needed to keep a firearm working? If not that starts to look like a real burden not just normal reg.

SCOTUS will ultimately determine that these types of restrictions are inconsistent with the 2A when the issue is directly addressed. Mag capacity limits will be repealed within the next couple years.. I'm pretty confident about that.

So why now? The political dynamics in CA is revealing a massive shift in public sentiment with Democratic influence weakening. They made the mistake of allowing crime to increase while remaining hypocritical on many issues. The scam w/ the hospice care homes will hurt the democrats as they try to sweep that under the rug. I'm very confident that the next gov election will result in a republican victory. I'm reading about the promotion of Katie Porter as a leading Democratic gov candidate??? There is zero chance she will win. We need to bring back careful reasoning and an emphasis on evidence based analysis rather than emotional responses.

Obviously these are just two threads involving a handful of people, but initially, this absolutely does NOT sound like "it's merely getting slightly more difficult to get gun parts & accessories."

Most people here seem to completely forget that the 2A is a constitutionally enshrined RIGHT. We have a RIGHT to purchase firearms and as courts have ruled ammunition & related parts (such as mags).

Adding this level of difficulty which interferes with the exercise of a 2A right seems like a pretty easy target to me.

The law doesn’t say the government can’t regulate guns at all. It says they can’t take away the core right to own and use them for self-defense.

Making something harder to buy or adding steps isn’t automatically illegal. The real question is simple: can a normal law-abiding person still get a firearm and ammo? If the answer is yes courts usually allow those rules.

We need to shift towards being aligned and being unified from a litigation strategic perspective.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

The real issue is where it starts interfering with the 2A right. Under Bruen it’s not about whether something is a ban it’s whether there’s a historical analogue.

Is there any tradition of requiring background checks or going through a middleman just to get common parts needed to keep a firearm working? If not that starts to look like a real burden not just normal reg.

SCOTUS will ultimately determine that these types of restrictions are inconsistent with the 2A when the issue is directly addressed. Mag capacity limits will be repealed within the next couple years.. I'm pretty confident about that.

So why now? The political dynamics in CA is revealing a massive shift in public sentiment with Democratic influence weakening. They made the mistake of allowing crime to increase while remaining hypocritical on many issues. The scam w/ the hospice care homes will hurt the democrats as they try to sweep that under the rug. I'm very confident that the next gov election will result in a republican victory. I'm reading about the promotion of Katie Porter as a leading Democratic gov candidate??? There is zero chance she will win. We need to bring back careful reasoning and an emphasis on evidence based analysis rather than emotional responses.





The law doesn’t say the government can’t regulate guns at all. It says they can’t take away the core right to own and use them for self-defense.

Making something harder to buy or adding steps isn’t automatically illegal. The real question is simple: can a normal law-abiding person still get a firearm and ammo? If the answer is yes courts usually allow those rules.

We need to shift towards being aligned and being unified from a litigation strategic perspective.

On paper it's only barrels that require a background check, the "accessories" are literally just an ID check to identify the person buying "accessories", honestly the companies that are choosing not to ship here are kind of being pussies because they made it clear what's required to comply and it's not that hard. Since there is a fairly easy path to compliance it's a hard argument to make because you could easily point to the companies and say "they could comply they just chose not to". But we will see, it won't be for a very long time because there isn't even a case yet let alone one that's gone through several years of appeals.

I don't see what you are seeing regarding the governors race though, the recent poll had dem candidates at 50% with the 2 GOP at 34 when you add them together, so if the race happened today you would need 100% of undecided voters to vote GOP. I hate Newsom as much as anyone but I don't see the GOP candidates as any better. I haven't heard any real solutions from any of them especially Bianco, that guys a clown. I mean the reality is that most criticisms of California outside of guns are kind of bull, like the crime rate is literally lower than it's ever been, and I don't think that has anything to do with who the governor is it's just societal changes it's like that all over the world with some exceptions. The only thing GOP is offering right now is that they are friendlier to guns but as a governor they can't do anything anyway, the legislature is 75% Dem, they can override governors vetos even. The democats suck balls but the other guys aren't any better and on most things are way worse. But that of course is just my ty opinion

 

[nakatomi]

On paper it's only barrels that require a background check, the "accessories" are literally just an ID check to identify the person buying "accessories", honestly the companies that are choosing not to ship here are kind of being pussies because they made it clear what's required to comply and it's not that hard. Since there is a fairly easy path to compliance it's a hard argument to make because you could easily point to the companies and say "they could comply they just chose not to". But we will see, it won't be for a very long time because there isn't even a case yet let alone one that's gone through several years of appeals.

I don't see what you are seeing regarding the governors race though, the recent poll had dem candidates at 50% with the 2 GOP at 34 when you add them together, so if the race happened today you would need 100% of undecided voters to vote GOP. I hate Newsom as much as anyone but I don't see the GOP candidates as any better. I haven't heard any real solutions from any of them especially Bianco, that guys a clown. I mean the reality is that most criticisms of California outside of guns are kind of bull, like the crime rate is literally lower than it's ever been, and I don't think that has anything to do with who the governor is it's just societal changes it's like that all over the world with some exceptions. The only thing GOP is offering right now is that they are friendlier to guns but as a governor they can't do anything anyway, the legislature is 75% Dem, they can override governors vetos even. The democats suck balls but the other guys aren't any better and on most things are way worse. But that of course is just my ty opinion




View attachment 168440

You’re mixing pre Bruen logic with current law. Courts don’t ask if something is just harder anymore, they ask if there’s a historical tradition for that regulation. There isn’t one for restricting common parts needed to keep a firearm functional. Courts look at real world burden and if access is limited in practice that strengthens a challenge not weakens it right?

On crime the long term trend is down but the actual data shows a real spike from 2020 to 2022 with the data for Los Angeles County below:

Violent crime rises from about 56k in 2019 to over 61k by 2022 and homicide jumps from 508 to 841. Even in 2024 it is still above 2019 levels. The chart you posted compresses decades and blends categories which hides that spike.

Long-term averages don’t change what people are actually experiencing in the years we’re living through. We see it in our neighborhoods and we see it in the supermarkets and malls. We see it on Youtube. There has been a lack of accountability and people feel the consequences in their daily lives. I think most people reading this will agree with me if they are honest with themselves.

Firearm ownership has increased significantly. Around 2010 about 32% of US households reported owning a gun. Today estimates suggest that number is closer to 45%. Individual ownership has also risen from about 22% to over 30%.

There is a massive shift in how people think about safety responsibility and trust in institutions. It is happening now not just in long-term averages.

If these laws make it hard for regular law abiding people to actually get and maintain legal gun parts then they are not just regulating things anymore they are getting close to blocking the right in practice. At some point if compliance becomes this difficult it is fair to ask whether this is still regulation or something closer to a functional restriction.

--

Data Source:

State of California Department of Justice - OpenJustice

openjustice.doj.ca.gov

To access the underlying FBI crime data, select “Crime Clearances” and enter the relevant county and year.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Literally everywhere had crime spike during covid. So the spike in Texas was from Democrat "soft on crime policies?" I think the issue is you are experiencing life through YouTube, it's not real, it's not more dangerous. You must be young or never lived in a city because it was much worse in the 90s in the Bay area where I grew up in San Francisco and Oakland. I'm not saying nothing is wrong, there's plenty of stuff wrong, but you gotta think a little deeper about what it's actually coming from and what the solutions are. The GOP proposals are literally just "make crime illegal", meanwhile a state like Texas has higher homicide rate than CA by about 50%. Most of our issues are because of our success, we have so much money that homes are insanely expensive, but we also have so many people with money that they stay expensive because people can pay it. So for instance Steve Hilton has been saying the problem is we can't build because of "government red tape", yet of all people, and I hate to defend the guy, but Newsom tried to push the local jurisdictions so hard the past 8 years to build that the state was suing counties for not following the state housing plan. The DOJ sued 10 counties for not building houses. Newsom also suspended environmental review on whole bunch of stuff including housing, the state legislature too has suspended CEQA on a ton of stuff to make it easier to build houses, manufacturing, a ton of different stuff. You have to actually learn about these things in order to make them better, so if a GOP candidate comes through and says that only they can make it better by.... doing the exact same thing as what's already happening.... then I call bull. That's what populism is, just playing on peoples emotions that don't know any better.

 

[nakatomi]

Crime spiked during the pandemic but that explains the direction not outcome. Policy determines how long it lasts and what types of crime persist. Property crime and retail theft are much more sensitive to enforcement + prosecution decisions than homicide. It’s also incomplete to attribute these trends solely to the pandemic. Political priorities influenced policy decisions during and after that period, particularly around charging practices, sentencing thresholds & enforcement posture. Those choices affect the expected cost of certain crimes esp retail theft and help explain why some categories persisted or evolved differently across jurisdictions.

Using Texas homicide rates to dismiss retail theft trends in CA is not a valid comparison. Those are driven by completely different factors. Let me explain so on the theft side it is not just about a dollar threshold, it's about the enforcement environment around it. If penalties are lower and prosecution is inconsistent the expected cost of committing theft drops right? That changes behavior at the margin. You see that reflected in repeat offenses and retail responses like locking inventory or closing stores. That is not YouTube perception.. that is measured loss & operational change.

On the legal point you are mixing frameworks: After Bruen, courts are not asking if something is just inconvenient. They are asking whether there is a historical tradition for that type of regulation and what the real world burden looks like. If companies broadly stop shipping or access breaks down in practice that is not a neutral fact. That is evidence of burden and courts look at effects not just theoretical compliance.

No one here is saying all regulation is invalid. The question is where regulation crosses into materially interfering with a right in practice. That is where these cases will be decided.

And on politics you can point to long term trends but people respond to what they are experiencing now. I experienced many shoplifting incidents during this period. Experienced crime tourism (look it up) firsthand, mail theft and car break ins. This is all in southern CA where our crime rate is incredibly low. Didn't experience this in the 90s. A short term spike combined with visible changes in daily life matters whether or not a 30 year chart smooths it out.

 

[nakatomi]

I don't see what you are seeing regarding the governors race though, the recent poll had dem candidates at 50% with the 2 GOP at 34 when you add them together, so if the race happened today you would need 100% of undecided voters to vote GOP.

You’re referencing one poll but that’s exactly my point, the situation isn’t settled it’s shifting.

Below is a CBS (note it isn't Fox haha) panel discussing a Berkeley poll showing two GOP candidates currently leading the CA governor primary field because the Democrat vote is split. So it’s not that one side is definitively ahead, it’s that different credible polls are showing different outcomes depending on how the vote is distributed.

And that’s where people are missing how the system actually works. CA doesn’t use a normal (jungle) primary. Everyone is on the same ballot all voters are in 1 pool and the 2 two candidates move on regardless of party.

So it’s not about total party support it’s about which individual candidates get the most votes. If one side is split across multiple candidates while the other is more consolidated you can end up losing both spots even if you have more overall voters.

 

[treelogger]

After Bruen, courts are not asking if something is just inconvenient. They are asking whether there is a historical tradition for that type of regulation ...

Yes but no.

The way courts look at this goes down several logical steps. First step: Does the law/regulation even affect the exercise of the 2A significantly (*)? If no, then all 2A arguments (including Bruen, MacDonald, Heller, Miller and Dred Scott) are irrelevant. If yes, then we need to know how to evaluate 2A infringement, and today we need to follow Bruen (as refined by Rahimi and backed up by Heller/MacDonald). The issue with AB 1263 and friends is that they fail the first test already: It continues to be relatively easy and relatively inexpensive to obtain gun parts, accessories and barrels. Just look at this thread titled "How does one order parts online these days" on this very forum, where lots of people point out where things can be had without any problem. So Bruen doesn't even enter the picture.

I think it was Kostas who above pointed to B&L productions as one example of this line of reasoning.

(*) Footnote: The key word is whether law/regulation affect the 2A significantly, or a lot, or unreasonably. If one takes that reasoning out, we end up with ludicrous results. For example, I could claim that federal income tax infringes on the 2A, since after paying taxes I have less money left for ammo. Or the speed limit infringes on the 2A, since it takes me longer to get to the range if I can only go 55. Those arguments don't wash. And if giving 35% of my income to the IRS is fine, then an extra $8 or $20 for shipping is fine, as is an extra 11% on guns and ammo.

 

[tomrkba]

Does anyone here pay dues to CPRA and NRA? They should be the ones leading this charge.

You are "gunowning" incorrectly if you are not a member of California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The first helps fight bad gun laws and the second allows you to carry in USPS while fighting bad gun laws. Your annual memberships should also include the NRA.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Crime spiked during the pandemic but that explains the direction not outcome. Policy determines how long it lasts and what types of crime persist. Property crime and retail theft are much more sensitive to enforcement + prosecution decisions than homicide. It’s also incomplete to attribute these trends solely to the pandemic. Political priorities influenced policy decisions during and after that period, particularly around charging practices, sentencing thresholds & enforcement posture. Those choices affect the expected cost of certain crimes esp retail theft and help explain why some categories persisted or evolved differently across jurisdictions.

Using Texas homicide rates to dismiss retail theft trends in CA is not a valid comparison. Those are driven by completely different factors. Let me explain so on the theft side it is not just about a dollar threshold, it's about the enforcement environment around it. If penalties are lower and prosecution is inconsistent the expected cost of committing theft drops right? That changes behavior at the margin. You see that reflected in repeat offenses and retail responses like locking inventory or closing stores. That is not YouTube perception.. that is measured loss & operational change.

On the legal point you are mixing frameworks: After Bruen, courts are not asking if something is just inconvenient. They are asking whether there is a historical tradition for that type of regulation and what the real world burden looks like. If companies broadly stop shipping or access breaks down in practice that is not a neutral fact. That is evidence of burden and courts look at effects not just theoretical compliance.

No one here is saying all regulation is invalid. The question is where regulation crosses into materially interfering with a right in practice. That is where these cases will be decided.

And on politics you can point to long term trends but people respond to what they are experiencing now. I experienced many shoplifting incidents during this period. Experienced crime tourism (look it up) firsthand, mail theft and car break ins. This is all in southern CA where our crime rate is incredibly low. Didn't experience this in the 90s. A short term spike combined with visible changes in daily life matters whether or not a 30 year chart smooths it out.

There is no "soft on crime" policy in the first place. There was a voter referendum that changed some felony's to misdemeanors but then another one that reversed it. None of that even has to do with the governor or the legislature which have both passed more "tough on crime" bills in the last few years. I think it would be helpful to identify specific policies in order to seek actual solutions, you and many other are operating on "feels" rather than concrete issues. I have endless criticism for the governor and legislature but I firmly believe you have to criticize real things to make progress and not just repeat internet propaganda.