View Single Post
Old November 21, 2011, 11:19 PM   #24
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
Clarifications: Haynie, Richards I and Richards II

There was some confusion over at CalGuns, because of an announcement, today, by the SAF. So, Donald Kilmer came online to clarify what exactly was going on. I'm quoting his entire post from here.

Quote:
In all cases the Plaintiffs were state court criminal defendants charged under Penal Code s 12280(b). These cases were dismissed after the government conceded that the guns were not assault weapons under CA law. Calguns Foundation, Inc., and SAF paid my office to represent all of these defendants in these state court criminal actions.

Federal Civil Rights Case #1 - Haynie v. Harris. Originally included Pleasanton Police Dept. for false arrest. They paid up on the cost of Mr. Haynie's bail and were dismissed. Only remaining action was to request that Cal DOJ issue bulletin/memo about bullet-button rifles to prevent future wrongful arrests.

Fedearl [sic] Civil Rights Case #2 - Richards v. Harris. Also asked that Cal DOJ issue bulletin/memo clarifiying [sic] assault weapons statutes to prevent future wrongful arrests. Also suing Rohnert Park Police and arresting officer for wrongful arrest to recover attrorney [sic] fees and bail bond costs.

Cases #1 and #2 were consolidated in a hearing where DOJ tried to get the cases dismissed on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing because they couldn't plausibly allege that they faced additional threats of arrest.

After the motion was submitted to the Court, but before the Court issued its opinion, Mr. Richards was arrested again in Sonoma County. We tried to get the DOJ to stipulate that this fact be placed before the Court, even though the Federal Rules do not permit additional material (except for a change in the law) to be submitted once the matter has been argued. They declined.

The judge granted the CA DOJ request to dismiss on the standing issue relying on the case of Lyons v. Los Angeles. In that case, since Mr. Lyons couldn't prove that he rationally feared re-arrest, he could not seek injunctive relief against the LAPD to stop their use of choke-holds.

Although the judge granted DOJ's motion, they allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. We did.

Back to Mr. Richards' second arrest. He had to post bail again. Again he was cleared of the charges because the gun was not an assault weapon.

Federal Civil Rights Case #3 - Richards v. Harris II. We are no longer seeking to have the DOJ clarify the law. Now we want the law declared unconstitutionally vague. And we want damages from the arresting agency -- Sonoma County Sheriff and arresting officer. This case was filed on November 17, 2011. It will probably be consolidated with Haynie and Richards I.
Don's summation of the case is just excellent!
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04566 seconds with 7 queries