Posted on 02/18/2004 3:23:30 PM PST by pennysaver
Folks - I will try to keep this brief: I'm in a bit of a quandary and I hope that you may be able to help. I legally own(ed) several "Assault Weapons" purchased from 1992-1995, which have now been classified as "Illegal" in California. The Riverside County DA has filed Misdemeanor charges against me for possession of those weapons, even though I purchased them legally, because I failed to re-register them pursuant to legislative changes in 2001. (Changes that the state did not feel obliged to inform such gun owners about). My attorney feels that due to the Constitutional nature of this case, it warrants going to trial.
I was hoping that you could point me in the right direction with regards to finding successful challenges to this law, opponents to this law who might be willing to speak on my behalf, or even sources of information that could aid in my case. Specifically how this legislation contravenes Federal law.
One of the main sticking points is that my wife and I lost the original paper work for the guns during a move several years ago. Second, one gun was purchased from a gun store which is now out of business, and the other gun was purchased from a gun store that has a contract with the ATF to store their records. Recent changes in the Appropriations Act with regards to the Homeland Security Act prevent the ATF from releasing weapons information to private citizens, so the only Agency that can prove that I am the legal owner of the guns can only give the information to the DA who is charging me and that's if he asks. (Is Joseph Heller still alive? He'd love this Catch-22).
At the very worst I am looking at going to jail, as well as not having my guns returned to me - guns that I bought legally, and guns that were never used in the commission of a crime.
This can't be America!
Any help that you can provide, or put me in contact with someone who can, would be greatly appreciated.
Please note that I started target shooting with my Dad and Lowell Thomas when I was 5 years old; I shot Distinguished Expert & Army Expert when I was 10; I shot in the New York National Guard Armory Youth Shooting Program, shooting M-16 .22 conversions; I was on my High School Skeet/Trap & Rifle team, as well as my College Rifle/Pistol Team. I am not a villian, ruffian or in any other way a vile member of society.
I have held my job with a well respected publishing company for over 10 years, and am expecting my first child in July (the 4th!)
Thanks for any answers and help!
Chris "Smitty" Smith
Try your collection of old canceled checks or your old banking records or look up your old bank and have them reproduce photostats of the old checks.
An old bank warrant made out to a gun shop may help you establish a contemporaneous record that alludes to facts not in evidence. This could be enough to sway a jury in regards to your credibility over the issue of legitimate purchase.
(e) Notwithstanding Section 654 or any other provision of law, any person who commits another crime while violating this section [12280] may receive an additional, consecutive punishment of one year for violating this section in addition and consecutive to the punishment, including enhancements, which is prescribed for the other crime.
There is some very good options posted ahead of me, this section I posted on 12280pc is if the firearm was used in the commission of a crime while violating the register order, this would give the judge the option of the mandatory 1yr. sentence. My advice is if you want to fight this you will need more than a yellow page lawyer, the pc violation for 12280 is very confusing, you'll need a lawyer in this field, try calling some gun shops, they would know who to steer you to.
The other option is to do a plea with the da, that is what I would do. Your lawyer will be able to negotiate a deal that could even let you keep the fire arms, and pay the fine and re-register your guns. Let us know how it comes out.......
Not quite. During the Clinton administration, in the Emersson case at the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, the US Government argued that even possession by members of the organized militia, which they defined as the National Guard, was not protected, unless the weapons were issued by the state and used in performance of official duties. In other words when Madison wrote, and all the rest read and approved "right of the people" they really meant "right of the state". The court did not look kindly on that arguement (it was loaded with Texas Aggies :), and all of the Judges were Texans, IIRC ), but ruled against Emerson anyway, just barely and on very narrow grounds.
Excellent! Confiscation, without any criminal charges. "We will allow you to simply surrender your guns!" Why, what a great deal!
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.