BIG New CA Lawsuit!

[Al Norris]

Today, the SAF has sued California over its vague definition of Assault Weapons (and incidentally, the ban).

Read the press release, here.

Until I get it listed on PACER, you can read the complaint, here. Then it will be linked (as all the other cases), by name and docket in the Current 2A Cases thread (a sticky at the top of this forum).

Filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Don Kilmer and Jason Davis (who has posted a couple of times here) are the attorneys.

This one has probable effects to any other State that has an AWB that may be patterned after the CA AWB statutes, should it get to the circuit and win there. Admittedly, this part is a long shot. But with this plaintiff, it stands a fair chance.

I personally like the fact that they are going after the constitutionality of the CA "E-Check." This is CA penal code 12031(e), which legislatively allows for a warrantless search and seizure, merely to identify that any firearm is in fact unloaded.

Anyone in CA who may be carrying a handgun openly, must carry that firearm unloaded. This is known in CA as UOC (a designation peculiar to CA alone). According to 12031(e), any policeman has the authority to stop you and inspect your firearm to ensure it meets the law and is unloaded. In addition, any officer, who in the course of a contact, becomes aware that you have firearms in your vehicle, may then inspect those arms so as to ensure that they are in fact unloaded, per the law.

This is a detention and seizure without probable cause and without a warrant.

 

[mes227]

Nice timing. My son was asking me yesterday why the California laws haven't been challenged constitutionally.

 

[Eghad]

Looks like everything lined up right and the plaintiff is the right one for the case. The DOJ expert ruling on the weapon is the icing on the cake.

 

[hogdogs]

Is the scotus circuit better there than other venues? Is the CA AWB the best one to go after first?

I do not know so I am really asking...

Brent

 

[Al Norris]

Brent, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court) is not a circuit. They take cases from all over the US and its territories.

This is within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case will be dismissed at the District Court level and the 9th will most likely make some wobbling ruling that holds for CA.

The CA AWB has been ripe for a while. It is convoluted and requires an actual roadmap to follow it and not be in unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm. I'll see if I can get the "map" from CalGuns.

 

[hogdogs]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

That is what I meant... I thought (stupid rednecks need to quit thinkin') it was circuit court of appeals "of the scotus"....

So the california law is wisely the best one to attack before, say, Jersey?
Brent

 

[Eghad]

If the assault law is confusing to trained law enforcement personnel how is the citizen supposed to figure it out?

The police officer was supposedly a subject matter expert according to the DA. Then you have the state expert say he is wrong.

The end objective is to get the law thrown out as being unenforceable because it unfairly penalizes the citizen because it is confusing to law enforcement and places undue burden on the citizens.

If the law is not thrown out then at the hopefully it is going to penalize the state, county and local governments with costs for training that will still cause confusion or require a rewrite of the law that has specific criteria for an assault weapon or specifically names firearms that meet the criteria. May even allow citizens to recoup costs from a wrongful arrest. This is at a time when there is no money in the kitty for a lot of levels of government.

 

[hogdogs]

So to help me understand... It is the absolute confusing nature that makes this the best "AWB" to go after?

Brent

 

[Spats McGee]

I don't know if that makes CA law "the best" one to attack first, but that is one of CA law's major weaknesses. In order for a law to withstand constitutional attack, it has to fairly apprise the citizen of what constitutes prohibited conduct. When a law gets so confusion that you have to have a flow chart, and even the experts can't agree, it no longer does that. At that point, it becomes virtually impossible for a citizen to know what is legal and what's not.

 

[Eghad]

I would probably say the vagueness of the law contributes to the confusion.

The local officer say yes they are in violation, then you have the DOJ guy say no the local officer is wrong.

sound like confusion to me.

Sound like the lawyers in this case have everything they need to take this case where it needs to go.

if I was a local police chief after this fiasco I would be kind of hesitant to arrest somebody in similar circumstances till this case is finalized and has a "final" outcome. I would probably have the officer take down the information and take no actions without a ruling on the guns from the DOJ.

Which would put the responsibility right square in the lap of the DOJ.

If the court rules that the plaintiff can recover legal costs from the local PD that is going to hurt big time. Its probably money in the budget the PD does not have to spend which means they have to cut stuff from the budget.


The Ninth can come up with some crazy rulings... with the circumstances in this case it seems that something is going to have to be changed.

 

[hogdogs]

Okay... this helps this simple feller out in understanding the process a bit.
Brent

 

[Al Norris]

Over at CalGuns, Gene Hoffman (Chairman CalGuns Foundation) revealed that a prior case, Haynie v. Kamala Harris (CA AG) and CA DOJ, was filed on March 25, 2010. This case has much in common with the Richards case.

Now add in that Gene has filed "a declaration showing that the California Department of Justice had actually lead a disinformation campaign from 2006 to 2009 that was designed to confuse gun owners and law enforcement and actively attempted to create criminal test cases against innocent gun owners" (Exhibits A thru K).

The importance of these cases, and what they will do (not if) has just been raised by a factor of 2.

Fact is, there is going to be a motion to relate the cases, as they are so similar as to preclude what the DOJ has argued (so far) in the Haynie case. Namely that this doesn't occur with any regularity. Expect the CA DOJ to fight tooth and nail to keep the cases separate. For a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that the Haynie is already a year old and closer to resolution.

There are two parts to the CA AW flowchart. Side A is a list of questions to which you answer "yes" or "no." At which point you follow the arrows... Side B is the appendices that are referenced by the chart itself. You simply must consult side B before you answer side A questions.

Side A
Side B

CalGuns has a wiki page for all the info you will need. See it here.

Still confused? So is everyone else.

 

[jmortimer]

Will see if this is determined to be a "reasonable" restriction. In the mean time it still blows here in kaifornia. What Justice Kennedy just did to our prison system makes me wonder about that guy siding with the four antis. Still a long way off from SCOTUS.

 

[Al Norris]

I missed it, initially. However I did catch it when I reformatted the 2A cases thread.

On June 8th, Richards was related to Haynie. The case will begin moving forward shortly.

 

[BGutzman]

I can see these kinds of laws continuing on and on forever or at least up until the point that the SCOTUS provides some detailed direction that you have a right to bear arms outside of your house and that in order to be able to reasonably employ them in self defense they must be allowed to be loaded..

When that day comes.... and it will.... I cant wait to see the reaction of the antis in Kalfornia.

 

[Al Norris]

This precisely why the Ezell opinion is such a big win.

Their decision spelled out that there is a right to carry. Full Stop. When the decision used the phrase, "in the home," it was perfectly in context of the Heller question, as it was asked and answered.

In this case, both Richards and Haynie will address the confusion the CA law is, and how not even the authorities (police) can tell if the firearm in question is lawful or not.

 

[maestro pistolero]

I can see these kinds of laws continuing on and on forever or at least up until the point that the SCOTUS provides some detailed direction that you have a right to bear arms outside of your house and that in order to be able to reasonably employ them in self defense they must be allowed to be loaded..

. . . And that if they are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes or suitable for a would-be militia, then they cannot be banned, no matter how scary they look.

 

[Eghad]

I think the SCOTUS has overturned the 9th 26 times and 12 of those were unanaimous decisions.....

The conservative justices on the Supreme Court are no big fans of the 9th and the warped logic that doesn't not comply with previous SCOTUS rulings.

 

[Al Norris]

Today, in the consolidated Haynie/Richards v. Harris case, the Judge granted the CA DOJ Motion to Dismiss on lack of standing.

Judge did grant the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs have until Nov. 4th to file an amended complaint addressing the standing issue and the injunctive relief.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Bummer.

Will the plaintiffs amend, or appeal?