Posted on 12/29/2013 9:21:55 AM PST by marktwain
Yesterday, counsel for plaintiffs Brendan Richards, Mark Haynie, The Calguns Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation filed an amended complaint in the case of Haynie, et al. v. Kamala Harris, et al., a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging California’s “Assault Weapons” laws as unconstitutional.
The court filing states that plaintiffs seek “injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants [Kamala Harris and DOJ] that the California Penal Codes and Regulations defining Assault Weapons are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and therefore result in wrongful arrests and seizures of lawfully possessed/owned arms.” The filing also claims that “the unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous definitions of assault weapons and the ongoing risk of arrest and seizure have a chilling effect on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms of ordinary and common design as protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
The case stems from a series of unconstitutional arrests and property seizures relating to firearms mis-identified as “assault weapons” by law enforcement. Mr. Richards was himself improperly arrested and had legal firearms seized twice on two difference occasions by two different law enforcement agencies since 2010.
A downloadable copy of the complaint is shown below.
This could be precident setting. Are they challenging the definition of assault weapons or so-called assault weapons?
“Could progress be made in California courts?”
This is a FEDERAL Lawsuit!
There is no justice from an unjust judge - Aesop
Yes, a Federal lawsuit in a court in California.
Abe Lincoln:
“If we call a cow’s tail a leg, how many legs does that cow have?”
“NO! The cow only has FOUR LEGS! Just because you call the tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg!”
I don’t know how these courts get away with any of these laws...It’s either a semi automatic rifle or it’s not...There is no difference between a semi auto deer rifle and any other semi auto rifle...I don’t understand how they get away with any of this, even in CA. Same with concealed permits...How do they get away with it? How is it some law abiding citizens are able to carry and protect themselves, while others are not afforded the same right? We either have a Second Amendment, or we don’t...
I am no expert on this subject, but I do find the level of government intrusion here to be totally beyond reason.
Considering that the Clinton AWB had much of the same foolishness in it I suspect this case is doomed to SCOTUS where it will not be picked up and die with whatever the 9th circus did(which will not be good for gun owners).
Yes, very possibly.
“Yes, a Federal lawsuit in a court in California.”
Yes, It will depend on the actual judge handing the case. But there are still conservative judges here in California/ But no matter, what the case will go to the 9th Circus and then on to the SCOTUS. So the important thing is a decision to move it along.
....”... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”
(how do we get our constitution back, anyway?)
Could progress be made in California courts?
There's little or no predicting what will happen in court cases. Uncertainty is one of the many effects of the failure of the rule of law.
The courts in California have been loaded with anti-gun liberals for decades. I don’t give them much hope.
Are you willing to kill for it?
(Because I think only bloodshed is likely to do it.)
“This hasn’t happened before in California. And I’m quite sure that the lawyers involved have read Sun Tzu’s admonition to only fight battles one has already won.”
One problem is in having the knowledge and judgement that you have already won.
Another is that the other side pushes bad cases to get the precedent that they want. One of the worst was U.S. v. Miller, where a judge who was the era’s equivalent of Charles Schumer set up almost the entire case. He picked the case, the defense attorney, the defendent, and wrote the defense. Then he collaborated with the Roosevelt administration to have it appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-peculiar-story-of-united-states-v.html
Here in California, they were cited in the recent Parker decision. In Parker, the issue was California's ban of online sales of "handgun" ammunition. An appeals court agreed with the trial court that the language of the statute is unconstitutionally vague. Part of the test for vagueness is that the law in question must touch upon a constitutionally protected activity. Rather than limiting itself to discussing the constitutional right of ammunition sellers to engage in legal commerce, the court also cited the right of individuals to purchase ammunition. The court cited Heller to show that the right to keep and bear arms, and thus the ammo to go in 'em, is an individual liberty. It then used McDonald to show that California must respect this right. This is a big change from the way things used to be around here.
By force of those self-same arms. As the founders intended.
Yes, I understand.
I was not citing Miller as controlling, I was using it as an example of how bad precedent can be established by pushing a losing case.
I think the overall trend in California courts on the second amendment is encouraging.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.