BIG New CA Lawsuit!

[HoraceHogsnort]

Ah..............the wheels of justice turn oh so slowly.

[Al Norris]

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.

[ltc444]

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

[BillCA]

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.

[Al Norris]

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.

[Eghad]

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?

[kaylorinhi]

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!

[rkba1984]

So I was reading the Calguns foundation Wiki Richards v. Harris and stumbled upon their lawsuit against the CA "assault weapons ban" which is really just a ban on certain features of a centerfire semi-automatic rifle. Such as pistol grip, flash hider, folding stock cannot be on a centerfire rifle with a "capacity to accept" a detachable magazine. If you need to use a tool to get your magazine out, then it no longer is considered "detachable". So guys put a bullet button release on their rifles so they can have those "evil" features.

The Calguns foundation is challenging the law because it is so vague, how can SO MANY people keep being arrested, charged with "Assault Weapon" possession, forced to hire expensive attorneys, then have the charges dropped because it turned out the gun was legally configured.

Why would you try to ruin a guys life over an item that is A. legally configured, and B. perfectly legal in what 46 other states that don't have an "Assault Weapon" ban.

Yet exactly that happened by one of the contributors to Swat Magazine, Erick Gelhaus (also a moderator at 10-forums.com which lists on their website "10-8 Forums is intended to be different from the glut of existing Internet forums, seemingly filled with self anointed experts and "keyboard commandos."

In this thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=509 : A man by the name of Marc Soulie, an armorer and owner of Spartan Precision Rifles, says that Erick testified that he was in possession of an illegal "assault weapon" forcing Marc to spend $7,000 fighting the charge. I am not sure if Marc has been added to the Harris V. Richards plaintiff list at this point.

The case is perfectly clear against CA, how can good people, in compliance with the law keep getting arrested for legal guns? Even after the case was filed, Mr. Richards the lead plaintiff was arrested AGAIN (I think it was at least the 4th time he had been arrested for legal guns) in sonoma county. "While the Motion To Dismiss was pending, Mr. Richards was actually arrested again on August 14 (2011) in Sonoma County by Sonoma sheriffs for possession of an M1A with what they thought was a flash hider attached. The same criminalist from CA DOJ cleared the weapon and charges were dismissed in September."- Gene Hoffman, Calguns Foundation.

It also makes me wonder why Erick Gelhaus would not know the laws and do this to someone.

It is important that people know who is causing legal gun owners severe legal issues. In the Marc Soulie situation, Erick Gelhaus could have told the DA, look his gun is legal we have to let him go.

Here is the amended complaint to the court. http://www.archive.org/download/gov....25676.43.0.pdf

[armoredman]

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.

[Al Norris]

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.

[TheGoldenState]

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?

[NJgunowner]

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.

[TheKlawMan]

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?

[CowTowner]

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?

[TheKlawMan]

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.

[Al Norris]

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.