California "assault weapon" ban challenged

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: Inquisitor, admin, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 10536
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

California "assault weapon" ban challenged

#1 Post by DispositionMatrix » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:10 pm

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 Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:10 pm, edited 1 time 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

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6749
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: California

#2 Post by K9s » 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.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 8854
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: California

#3 Post by YankeeTarheel » Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:22 pm

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.
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." -- Mark Twain
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19137
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: California

#4 Post by CDFingers » Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:47 pm

Good luck with that.

CDFingers
ImageImage
The wolf came in, I got my cards. We sat down for a game.
Cut the deck to the Queen of Spades, but the cards were all the same.

User avatar
senorgrand
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19392
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Calif Central Coast
Contact:

Re: California

#5 Post by senorgrand » Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:20 am

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:22 pm
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.
LOL -- good one.
Image

Grand Poobah and Bass Player for the Conspiracy of Weenies.

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6749
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: California

#6 Post by K9s » Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:21 am

I wonder how much of the US GDP is made up in "lawyer fees" these days?
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13926
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: California

#7 Post by highdesert » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:51 am

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

bajajoaquin
Been around awhile
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:46 pm
Contact:

Re: California

#8 Post by bajajoaquin » Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:28 am

So this is challenging the ban on ownership of previously-purchased guns, not the various bans on featurefull rifles?

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 10536
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: California

#9 Post by DispositionMatrix » Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:22 am

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

bajajoaquin
Been around awhile
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:46 pm
Contact:

Re: California

#10 Post by bajajoaquin » 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?

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19137
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: California

#11 Post by CDFingers » Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:44 am

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?
It means you should prolly read the article...

CDFingers
ImageImage
The wolf came in, I got my cards. We sat down for a game.
Cut the deck to the Queen of Spades, but the cards were all the same.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13926
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: California

#12 Post by highdesert » Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:23 am

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

bajajoaquin
Been around awhile
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:46 pm
Contact:

Re: California

#13 Post by bajajoaquin » 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?

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19137
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: California

#14 Post by CDFingers » Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:32 am

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
ImageImage
The wolf came in, I got my cards. We sat down for a game.
Cut the deck to the Queen of Spades, but the cards were all the same.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13926
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: California

#15 Post by highdesert » Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:42 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?
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

User avatar
BKinzey
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1979
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: California

#16 Post by BKinzey » 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.

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6749
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: California

#17 Post by K9s » 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.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

bajajoaquin
Been around awhile
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:46 pm
Contact:

Re: California

#18 Post by bajajoaquin » 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.

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 8854
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: California

#19 Post by YankeeTarheel » Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:55 pm

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).
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." -- Mark Twain
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6749
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: California

#20 Post by K9s » Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:38 pm

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.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4347
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: California

#21 Post by featureless » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:04 am

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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests