California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

1
Updated. Former title: "California "assault weapon" ban challenged"

Miller v. Becerra
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/f ... 1565909707

BREAKING: Second Amendment Lawsuit Challenging California “Assault Weapon” Ban Filed in San Diego Federal Court
SAN DIEGO (AUGUST 15, 2019) — Attorneys for three San Diego residents and one San Diego-based advocacy organization filed a federal lawsuit challenging California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons”. A copy of the complaint can be viewed or downloaded atwww.firearmspolicy.org/legal.

"This District Court already ruled the state’s prohibition on the possession of large-capacity magazines is unconstitutional, and enjoined and prohibited enforcement of those provisions of the Code that would have prohibited their possession,” the plaintiffs say in their complaint. “Both implicit and explicit in this District Court’s ruling was the ability to use such magazines if otherwise lawfully possessed” in legally-possessed firearms. “Thus,” it goes on, “the prohibitions that attach to the possession and use of a certain legislatively-invented class of otherwise commonly used, constitutionally protected” firearms “are likewise invalid and should be stricken.”

“This is a straight-forward case to protect our clients' constitutional rights and property,” explained attorney John Dillon. “The State of California’s ban on these firearms will fail constitutional scrutiny for the same reasons that its ban on firearm magazines did.”
Last edited by DispositionMatrix on Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: California

2
But these are weapons of war... on the streets... no one needs such things for self-defense.... the government will protect you.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: California

3
K9s wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:46 pm But these are weapons of war... on the streets... no one needs such things for self-defense.... the government will protect you.
By pepper-spraying you in the eyes.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: California

7
Sponsored by a county PAC, none of the big hitters names on the suit like NRA, CRPA, 2A Foundation...depends on the judge assigned, it's a tossup.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

9
bajajoaquin wrote:So this is challenging the ban on ownership of previously-purchased guns, not the various bans on featurefull rifles?
The complaint is linked at the top.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: California

12
bajajoaquin wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:27 am Does that mean you don’t know the answer to the question, or just don’t want to answer it?
Plaintiff Miller seeks to use his lawfully acquired large-capacity magazine(s) in his California-compliant, “fixed magazine rifle.” However, Plaintiff Miller is prevented from lawfully doing so without risk of persecution resulting in injury to his life and liberty; and the unlawful confiscation and loss of his personal property because said use would reclassify his rifle as a prohibited “assault weapon” as defined by Pen. Code § 30515(a)(2). Plaintiff Miller herein would like to exercise his rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, by possessing a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle, in common use for lawful purposes, but which the State considers an “assault weapon” solely by virtue of its magazine capacity.
For declaratory relief adudging that the definition of “assault weapon” For an order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcement or application of Pen. Code §§ 30600, 30605, 30800, 30910, 30915, 30945, and 31000, against Plaintiffs on an as-applied basis, and against all others, to the extent that such prohibitions as to “assault weapons” emanate solely from the legal definition of assault weapon under sections 30515(a)(2) and 30515(a)(5);
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/f ... 1565909707

FPC says it has the support of SAF and Calguns Foundation but it's not listed on their sites, perhaps amici briefs yet to come.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

14
It was even quoted above.

"“Thus,” it goes on, “the prohibitions that attach to the possession and use of a certain legislatively-invented class of otherwise commonly used, constitutionally protected” firearms “are likewise invalid and should be stricken.”"

The way I read it is that the "legislatively-invented class" should be stricken. To me it means your property should be your property. Clarify if you think I misinterpreted.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: California

15
bajajoaquin wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:26 am I did and still have the question.

Funny, I thought this was a discussion forum. If it’s not open for discussion, why not lock the topic and tell me to go to Calguns?
All we have is the brief that was filed.
Plaintiff Miller seeks to use his lawfully acquired large-capacity magazine(s) in his California-compliant, “fixed magazine rifle.”
Calguns does have a thread.
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/sho ... ?t=1552764
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

16
bajajoaquin wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:26 am I did and still have the question.

Funny, I thought this was a discussion forum. If it’s not open for discussion, why not lock the topic and tell me to go to Calguns?
I don't see any reason for you to get miffed over the discussion here.

You seem to be confused. No one is under an obligation to answer your questions to your demands. I have gotten answers and more information from Calguns on California issues before. It's an excellent source, better than here actually.

Re: California

17
bajajoaquin wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:26 am I did and still have the question.

Funny, I thought this was a discussion forum. If it’s not open for discussion, why not lock the topic and tell me to go to Calguns?
I admit that I am having a hard time following this discussion and the brief, too. I don't know the intricacies of blue state gun laws and court cases. There is a learning curve. I usually ignored the details because they just don't apply to my state. Embarrassing, but true.

Like bajajoaquin, I am just going to do my best to keep up and, probably, ask questions that seem obviously answered, too. :lol:

I cannot imagine how I would feel and what I would do if the Cali or MA laws became national. I have several old firearms that don't have a lot of (if any) 10 rd mags available (old Berettas, SIGs, VZ, etc.) and I wouldn't have the first clue what to do or where to go and "de-feature" my VZ, Yugo AK, WASR underfolder, AR, etc. I would ask questions about my M44 (attached bayonet) and other things.

Anyway... just an alternate view on the subject.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: California

18
BKinzey wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:53 am
bajajoaquin wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:26 am I did and still have the question.

Funny, I thought this was a discussion forum. If it’s not open for discussion, why not lock the topic and tell me to go to Calguns?
I don't see any reason for you to get miffed over the discussion here.

You seem to be confused. No one is under an obligation to answer your questions to your demands. I have gotten answers and more information from Calguns on California issues before. It's an excellent source, better than here actually.
You think it’s polite or helpful or otherwise appropriate to answer a question not with an answer but by repeating the original link?

I don’t think there’s any obligation to answer my question. However, it’s reasonable to expect that, in a forum specifically labeled as being about discussing the ins and outs of second amendment legislation that a question about the details of a second amendment issue would get a serious response.

There are a lot of moving pieces in that suit. The discussion of fixed mags, definition of assault weapon, action type combined with mag capacity, “features,” and a couple other things. It was not clear if they were using the injunction allowing possession of >10-rd mags was a strategy to go after the whole enchilada or if it was limited in scope.

One of the reasons I came here was that I didn’t want to support the right wing community of calguns. But when I ask a legitimate question here, I’m met with really non-helpful responses. That’s disappointing.

Re: California

19
Unfortunately, the answer to your question, bajajoaquin, is that the ONLY information we have is what's in the brief and everything else is just a wild-assed guess on part of members, who may or may not (like me) be trained in the law.

I can personally only infer (ie, guess) that they are suing to use equipment they already own and purchased legally, that, used together NOW is determined to be a crime under the California laws.

Beyond that, I don't think anyone can tell you anything more. I know nothing about Calguns, being a "temporary" New Jersey resident (here 26 years, now, and hoping, in 5 years, to move South--so, temporary).
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: California

20
bajajoaquin wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:37 pm
BKinzey wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:53 am
bajajoaquin wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:26 am I did and still have the question.

Funny, I thought this was a discussion forum. If it’s not open for discussion, why not lock the topic and tell me to go to Calguns?
I don't see any reason for you to get miffed over the discussion here.

You seem to be confused. No one is under an obligation to answer your questions to your demands. I have gotten answers and more information from Calguns on California issues before. It's an excellent source, better than here actually.
You think it’s polite or helpful or otherwise appropriate to answer a question not with an answer but by repeating the original link?

I don’t think there’s any obligation to answer my question. However, it’s reasonable to expect that, in a forum specifically labeled as being about discussing the ins and outs of second amendment legislation that a question about the details of a second amendment issue would get a serious response.

There are a lot of moving pieces in that suit. The discussion of fixed mags, definition of assault weapon, action type combined with mag capacity, “features,” and a couple other things. It was not clear if they were using the injunction allowing possession of >10-rd mags was a strategy to go after the whole enchilada or if it was limited in scope.

One of the reasons I came here was that I didn’t want to support the right wing community of calguns. But when I ask a legitimate question here, I’m met with really non-helpful responses. That’s disappointing.
Yeah, YankeeTarheel is right. We can only guess or go with what we read. Nothing will be clear until so many cases are concluded. Just assume no good news will come and you will probably be right.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: California

21
My opinion is that this lawsuit is poorly timed. It rests on the recent magazine "victory" which gave us "freedom week," now appealed to CA9 where it will almost certainly be overturned. I understand the desire to use standard capacity magazines in a "fixed magazine" gun. But the real issues is California's assault weapon ban and we've lost challenges against that already. I don't expect this will go anywhere as it's too convoluted and doesn't solve the actual infringements of either magazine capacity or assault weapon bans.

Re: California

23
K9s wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:07 pm
bajajoaquin wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:26 am I did and still have the question.

Funny, I thought this was a discussion forum. If it’s not open for discussion, why not lock the topic and tell me to go to Calguns?
I admit that I am having a hard time following this discussion and the brief, too. I don't know the intricacies of blue state gun laws and court cases. There is a learning curve. I usually ignored the details because they just don't apply to my state. Embarrassing, but true.

Like bajajoaquin, I am just going to do my best to keep up and, probably, ask questions that seem obviously answered, too. :lol:

I cannot imagine how I would feel and what I would do if the Cali or MA laws became national. I have several old firearms that don't have a lot of (if any) 10 rd mags available (old Berettas, SIGs, VZ, etc.) and I wouldn't have the first clue what to do or where to go and "de-feature" my VZ, Yugo AK, WASR underfolder, AR, etc. I would ask questions about my M44 (attached bayonet) and other things.

Anyway... just an alternate view on the subject.
I'll help you paddle as we are all in the same boat. I have a hard time keeping up with legal terminology more complicated than that which talks about shoveling gravel.

Re: California

24
“the prohibitions that attach to the possession and use of a certain legislatively-invented class of otherwise commonly used, constitutionally protected” firearms
To me that means they invented a name and class of weapons hereby named "assault weapons". Just to make them sound bad and get support for legislation passed. When all they are is semi-automatic weapons with larger magazines.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”

Re: California

25
Leave us not forget that a Republican governor signed the California assault weapons bill, just like a Republican governor signed the microstamping bill which gives us our roster and handgun prohibitions, just like a Republican governor signed the Mulford Act which prevents us from carrying openly in a state where all the urban areas will not grant carry licenses because reasons.

Don't forget.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests