CalGuns & SAF file lawsuit against CA AWB.

[-..__...]

How's that for a mouthful of acronyms.

SAF, Calguns Sue over California `Assault Weapons` Law Arrest

Mon May 23, 2011 2:09pm EDT

SAF, Calguns Sue over California ‘Assault Weapons’ Law Arrest

The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in California, seeking to have the state’s definition of so-called “assault weapons” declared unconstitutionally vague.

Joining SAF and Calguns in the lawsuit is Brendan John Richards, an Iraq combat veteran who served as a U.S. Marine, and whose arrest and six-day incarceration in the Sonoma County jail – and subsequent dismissal of all charges – was the catalyst for this legal action. Named as defendants are California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, the City of Rohnert Park and police officer Dean Becker.

Richards was jailed in May 2010 after Officer Becker, investigating a disturbance at a motel where Richards was staying, learned that Richards had two pistols and a rifle, all unloaded, in the trunk of his car. Becker, arrested Richards for unlawful possession of an assault weapon. However, in September of last year, the charges were dismissed by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office, based on a report from the state Department of Justice that showed none of the guns met the state’s definition of an assault weapon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/23/idUS188744+23-May-2011+BW20110523">More...


Link to complaint (PDF format)...

My only misgiving about this approach, is that the defendant is challenging the "vagueness"/language of the law, when the primary grievance should question CA's AWB as an outright infringement to our 2nd amendment rights... regardless of the laws "vagueness"

Still... it's a step in the right direction.

Give'em hell Calguns and SAF!!!


:headbang:

[right2bfree]

1. california AW ban is a good thing. hopefully he will lose his suit. nt

[X_Digger]

2. The only thing it's 'good' for is producing crazy looking rifles..

All three are CA legal rifles.

[ileus]

7. give me two bullet buttons to go please...

[SteveM]

15. Looks Daliesque. nt

[oneshooter]

4. Please explain why it is a "good thing". n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

11. How do you figure?

What about it do you consider "good"?

You are aware all it does is force certain rifles to be cosmetically changed, right? Not unlike if the state passed a law outlawing spoilers and fog lights on a car...the same car would just be sold without the spoiler and fog lights but with all the same capabilities.

[SteveM]

14. Do you know what an AW is, and how it differs from other weapons...

which are semi-automatic? For instance, I have a 106-yr.-old semi-auto .22 made by Winchester. Tens of millions of semi-auto rifles have been sold over the last century +. Can you tell me how the past "assault weapons ban," and for that matter, any contemplated bans, would differentiate between "assault weapons" and other semi-auto rifles? Thanks.

[rl6214]

19. Californias AWB is a waste of time

as was the Federal AWB, that's why it was allowed to sunset. All it did was ban scary features.

[HALO141]

21. Wrong again

[ileus]

3. AWB's are anti bait....that's all they're good for.

rah rah rah we banned a black gun

or

we banned a muzzle break

or

pistol grip (you know how evil those are)


ID10T's don't even know what an assault weapon is. To them it's anything scary, and to them any gun is scary...

[beevul]

9. You forgot the most dangerous thing...

The "shoulder thing that goes up"...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iIgGzjVNEAk/TSp3C58Vr9I/AAAAAAAAFg8/79D3HpMcQ-g/s1600/barrel+shroud.jpg

[ileus]

12. The guy in that pic is being pretty rude and intimidating with his OC laser thingy

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

8. Your story doesn't pass the smell test. Source article says weapons were unloaded and locked up...

...in the trunk of Richards' car.

I believe that if you had ever filed a complaint against someone for stalking you, you would at least know the proper spelling of stalking to apply to this situation.

If you are in fact a victim of some kind, it would be highly inappropriate and not at all constructive for you to show up on an Internet forum and post about a situation that one would reasonably assume to include outstanding criminal and/or civil court matters. Your real name is bound to be highly public information soon, if that is the case, and any decent attorney would have advised you to stay silent.

I'm calling BS on your post. You are either clueless or trolling.

[SteveM]

16. Yeah, this is mullet in the sun...

There are laws against stalking, there are laws against uttering threats to specific individuals. This "person" should be exercising those options with advice of an attorney, preferably a state's attorney.

In the event this scenario is true, isn't it ironic there are no legal means to counter the threat with equivalent force?

[SteveM]

17. Found similar posting --

http://gunalizer.com/gunrights/saf-cgf-sue-over-california-%E2%80%98assault-weapons-arrest/comment-page-1/

[slackmaster]

18. Same poor grammer, same incorrect choice of a homophone

:rofl:

ETA Do a Google search for "hope you know that the cop had reason to arrest Brendan Richards" and the same thing shows up all over the place.

[SteveM]

20. Yeah, I Googled "arrest Motel 6," "stalking," etc. Nothing.

[slackmaster]

23. You mis-spelled "stalking"

The deleted post contained the homophone (or near-homophone) "stocking".

I used to date a psycho nurse who pursued me on stalking feet. :-)

[ileus]

6. hopefully they can bring some common sense gun rights to CA...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. This is just more of that backlash...

[TheWraith]

13. I wish someone would take on New York State's pistol laws.

Requiring police permission for ownership in your own home is considerably more unreasonable than the state AWBs. But still, movement in the right direction.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. It will happen in due course, as they definitely fly in the face of McDonald v Chicago n/t