The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 20, 2011, 10:35 PM   #26
HoraceHogsnort
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Stanislaus Co., Mexifornia
Posts: 615
Ah..............the wheels of justice turn oh so slowly.
HoraceHogsnort is offline  
Old December 31, 2011, 10:26 PM   #27
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
A new development (not previously announced anywhere).

On Friday, Dec. 30th, a stipulated motion was sent to the court to reset the Case Management Conference (CMC) from Jan 13th to March 30th.

The reason for this delay? It appears another false arrest under the CA Assault Weapons Statutes has been made in Sonoma County by the Cotati Police Dept.

Talks have already taken place between Donald Kilmer and the new plaintiffs attorney and it seems that this new case will be related to Haynie; Richards I and Richards II.

Remembering that the Judge said this stuff was never likely to happen again ... I think a certain Judge is going to be eating some crow pie!

See Doc #49 at the Docket.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 2, 2012, 12:41 AM   #28
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
As the old country sage once said "there is no cure for a terminal case of stupidity"

One of our best weapons is the arogance of the anti gun crowd and the irrational people whom they have in place to enforce their position
ltc444 is offline  
Old January 2, 2012, 04:33 AM   #29
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Y'know... it might be worth the trouble to stage a nice demonstration for the court. The result would be a video showing how wrong police and the public can be about the law.

Imagine seven rifles on a table and you ask five different police officers to identify the CA-defined "assault weapon"[¹]. Do the same with three or four civilians. Among the rifles should be one true (legally registered) "assault rifle", a .22LR version, a modified rifle with no pistol grip, a (likely borrowed) Class-III M16, a CA-compliant "fixed magazine" rifle with a collapsing stock and bayonet lug and two CA-compliant "standard" AR-15 pattern rifles.


For non-Californians - CA has two (2) statutes. The 1989 law lists specific makes and models - such as the Colt AR-15 and Bushmaster XM15 - by name. After names were changed, CA added a "ban by features" that included things like a pistol grip, detachable magazine and any one of a list of features (bayonet lug, flash hider, collapsing stock, etc.)

In the demo above, the .22LR version is exempt because the law deines an AW as a "centerfire" rifle. Likewise, without a "protruding pistol grip" the rifle does not meet the definition under the "features" ban. The actual M-16 is not a banned "assault rifle" but a "machine gun" in CA. The "bullet button" mentioned requires the use of a bullet tip (or similar probe) to release the 10-round magazine which qualifies as a "fixed" magazine and exempts the rifle from the AW statute.


¹ "Assault weapon" as defined by CA law, not by military arms terminology the rest of the world uses.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old January 2, 2012, 09:08 AM   #30
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
A copy of the civil complaint of Richards II can be read here.

If we browse down to Pp. 19, paragraph 78(f), we find that Max Horowitz is the defendant in a (then ongoing) criminal action out of Cotati, CA. This would appear to be the 4th case talked about in the stipulated agreement.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 8, 2012, 11:37 AM   #31
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
That is pretty funny. The judge said there is no chance of him being arrested again and bam! they do it again.

I wonder how the judge feels with all that egg on his face?
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old January 9, 2012, 11:54 PM   #32
kaylorinhi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2010
Location: The brown eye of america
Posts: 463
Just moved to CA

This is of the highest interest for me as I am a new resident and not real used to having my right restricted. Thank you all who translate and repost the legal jargon!
__________________
Buy your guns by Yardline,
Not Looks.
kaylorinhi is offline  
Old March 24, 2012, 05:22 PM   #33
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,835
The answer is simple - if you can't legally defeat them, drain their resources in frivolous court battles and frazzle their nerves with continued arrest and threat of arrest. Eventually they will grow so weary of these activities they will either leave or rid themselves of the rifles. It is a simple and effective battle plan for those with "unlimited" access to state funds for said legal activities.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.

Last edited by armoredman; March 24, 2012 at 09:50 PM.
armoredman is offline  
Old May 1, 2012, 11:05 PM   #34
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Just a note.

The defendants were to file their answer to the amended complaint on or before today, May 1st. They have until midnight Pacific time to do this. I just checked and the brief was not filed.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 1, 2012, 11:21 PM   #35
TheGoldenState
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
Quote:
May 1st. They have until midnight Pacific time to do this. I just checked and the brief was not filed.
That sucks. I wonder why?
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless...
TheGoldenState is offline  
Old May 2, 2012, 01:52 PM   #36
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,095
Doesn't suck at all.

We're siding with the plaintiffs on this one, the defense is the State. I'm sure they'll file something, it'll be interesting how they defend this one.
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is offline  
Old May 3, 2012, 03:34 PM   #37
TheKlawMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
Quote:
That is pretty funny. The judge said there is no chance of him being arrested again and bam! they do it again.
Did the plaintiff set out to structure events to guaranteee that he would get arrested? What are the details?
TheKlawMan is offline  
Old May 3, 2012, 09:21 PM   #38
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,205
I don't see a defendant filing on the docket within the deadline of midnight, May 1st.
I'm guessing they didn't make it, so what happens now?
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is online now  
Old May 4, 2012, 01:33 AM   #39
TheKlawMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
I don't know the rules of this court, but defendant state very likely got an extension of time granted by stipulation for it to plead.
TheKlawMan is offline  
Old October 28, 2012, 10:12 AM   #40
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
A bit of an update.

The newest included case, Plog-Horowitz, was dismissed with prejudice last Wed., the 24th. There appears to be a bunch of other controversy over this plaintiff that Don Kilmer did not initially know about.

Maestro Pistolero has been following this more than I, so maybe he will tell us what has happened (you're welcome Chris ).

Suffice it to say, The court is ordering a new consolidated and amended complaint to be filed within 5 days. It is also ordered that the defendants now have 60 days to file their answer.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Tags
awb ban , calguns , california , saf , second amendment

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10858 seconds with 9 queries