"If a police officer cannot easily determine if an item is illegal or not, how can a citizen be able to do so?"
Well, in the PRK, that's the citizens' problem... 'citizen'.
Posted on 11/22/2011 6:01:48 AM PST by marktwain
BELLEVUE, WA -- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” claiming that the statute is “vague and ambiguous” in its definition of assault weapons, leading to the arrest of a California man on two different occasions.
SAF is joined in the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, by the CalGuns Foundation and Brendan John Richards, an honorably-discharged Marine and Iraq war veteran, who was arrested and jailed in May 2010 and August 2011. On both occasions, charges against Richards were dismissed when it was determined that he had not violated the law because firearms in his possession on both occasions were not “assault weapons” as defined by California law. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason A. Davis of Mission Viejo.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and Deputy Greg Myers.
“It’s an insult to be arrested once for violating a law that is so vague and ambiguous that law enforcement officers cannot tell the difference between what is and what is not a legal firearm under this statute,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but to be arrested and jailed twice for the same offense is an outrage. Brendan Richards’ dilemma is a textbook example of why the California statute should be nullified.
“On both occasions,” he continued, “Mr. Richards was jailed and had to post non-refundable bail fees. He lost work due to his incarcerations. In both cases, the same Senior Criminalist John Yount issued reports that the firearms in Richards’ possession were not ‘assault weapons’ under California law. Mr. Richards now has a reasonable fear that his exercise of his fundamental Second Amendment rights will result in more wrongful arrests. We’re delighted to step in, with the CalGuns Foundation, on his behalf.
“This nonsense has to stop,” Gottlieb stated, “and the only way to insure that is to show California’s assault weapon statutes and regulations are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. Brendan Richards is not the only citizen faced with this kind of harassment under color of law.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
Well, in the PRK, that's the citizens' problem... 'citizen'.
Fixed it for ya!
On a series note....my wife is from Thousand Oaks. Her Dad offered me a helluva good paying job, but I told him 3 things keep me from moving: 1) Hard to get CCW, 2) "Assault Weapons" Ban (let alone my NFA items), and 3) The fact that our 4000 sq.ft house in Arkansas will get us a 900-1200 sq ft house in Ventura County.
The law is unconstitutional... if a trained police officer can’t know whether its illegal to possess a given type of weapon, enforcement is likely to be arbitrary and capricious. It cannot be enforced fairly since the average citizen has no way to know in advance if he is in compliance with the law. The law’s constitutional defect cannot be cured. It must be struck down.
Easy. They are legal. Now bring Kalifornistanian law into agreement with the Constitution and all will be well. For those who insist on perpetuating their current legal fiction, try them and execute them for violation of USC Title 18 Sections 241 and 242.
I am so happy for myself to have moved away from my native California, the main thrust being the left wing’s out of control stranglehold on the state.
But I can’t help but have a broken heart for the complete loss of freedom the coastal dwellers are forcing upon the rest of the good people. I’d like to just scrape them off the face of the earth like a malignant growth.
The heck with “vague and ambiguous,” what about being against the Miller precedent? Does the firearm have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”? Is it “any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense”? If so, the law runs contrary to the logic and rationale of the Miller case, which stands on the 2nd amendment.
And besides, the Kali state government will find some way to crap all over your FIL’s business so that either it will disappear and you’d no be stuck in commie-ville with no job, or else he’ll wise up and move it to a free state where you can work for him and be free at the same time.
What exactly is the definition of “assault weapon”? Seems to me anything used to assault someone is an assault weapon.
Baseball bat, tire iron, -—you get the idea.
All guns have the capacity to kill human beings, pretty much. If all guns were removed from the face of the earth today, people would still kill people.
"Wait, this isn't an 'assault rifle'"... When what they should be saying is "So farggin' what? It's a personal ARM that I am BEARing and you will not INFRINGE my Right."
The Founding Fathers believed strongly enough in such a basic principle to kill people over it and start a war against their King.
The "capricious" part goes all the way to the top of the state's law-enforcement community, too. IIRC, a change in the attorney general's office resulted in a re-interpretation of the exemption of SKS rifles from the ban, and a mandatory "turn them in or dispose of them otherwise" order. I wonder what the compliance rate was, back in 1999 - 2000.
Better to just say, "It's my Right. F*ck off." If they try to bother you after that, defend yourself.
A couple of counters to your objection. First, the militia is all those capable of bearing arms. Second, the Miller case was decided on the character of the weapon, not on whether or not Miller was part of a state or federal organized militia.
Not that the federal government has any intention of respecting its own SCOTUS precedents, even SCOTUS won't. Best to just stay clear of the bastards, because once you are in their sights, they will make you pay. Being "right" has nothing to do with it.
Miller tried to establish a criteria by which RKBA could be qualified. It already is, "shall not be infringed". Period. Full stop.
Well regulated means that you, as a law abiding citizen, can show up at a formal or informal muster with military grade weaponry, and be able to do what your commander/governor/POTUS commands.
In 1776, you were well regulated if you could:
1) Hear the commands,
2) Do RIGHT SHOULDER ARMS, PRESENT ARMS, LOAD, AIM, FIRE, RECOVER, CHARGE! commands.
Today, that would translate into knowing how to do a tactical march, patrol, conduct a raid, set up an ambush, set up a patrol base, recon, throw a grenade, use a bayonet, use an M4, M203, AT4, M240, M249, .50 cal, etc.
I'm of the opinion that if you can "bear" it, you can own it. If you are say, rich as Bill Gates, I say that he could own an Aircraft Carrier and Wing and operate as a Privateer...ready to respond to Letters of Mark and Reprisal, and being called upon by his militia commander to defend his state and nation.
I better stop before I am called a right wing whacko.......
In 1776, you were well regulated if you could:
1) Hear the commands,
2) Do RIGHT SHOULDER ARMS, PRESENT ARMS, LOAD, AIM, FIRE, RECOVER, CHARGE! commands.
Not by me you won’t... I’m right there with you. ;-)
My original point was only that the Miller case, read for what it says, already puts the kibosh to what CA is trying to do with its AWB.
Although I do agree with you, have to, because on observation one can see the courts twisting the meaning of cases in order to obtain the outcome they want. There is no useful precedent in a 2nd amendment case. The court makes it up as it goes along. Been that way for decades.
Of course the CaliCommie Legislature will probably “fix” the problem by outlawing all semi-autos.
Yep. I even acknowledged that before going off on my tangent. ;-)
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.