|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 22, 2011, 09:49 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2004
Posts: 411
|
So what's the short and fast? Can someone please summarize what is going on now?
|
October 22, 2011, 10:18 PM | #27 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
State banned mail order ammo sales.
CalGuns and NRA sued. State Lost. State is appealing. |
October 23, 2011, 02:29 PM | #28 |
Member
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 57
|
No, Aguila, I have to differ...
That state is really not very appealing. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) |
October 23, 2011, 06:13 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2004
Posts: 411
|
So does anyone know how likely they are to win their appeal?
|
October 23, 2011, 07:43 PM | #30 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I don't think it very likely, but I'm biased.
Without reading the States opening brief, it's really kinda hard to actually say. We will know more, next week when the State files. |
October 23, 2011, 07:54 PM | #31 | |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
|
Quote:
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes. |
|
October 29, 2011, 08:36 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Stanislaus Co., Mexifornia
Posts: 615
|
madmag wrote: "One of my sons just moved to CA from NJ....kinda like going from the skillet to the skillet."
Its actually more like going from the latrine trench to the outhouse pit!! |
October 29, 2011, 09:15 PM | #33 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
From the Docket:
Quote:
|
|
August 28, 2012, 10:15 PM | #34 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I haven't been following the appeals to this case very much, as things were moving at a truly glacial pace (more the norm than the case we have been following)... Until I received an email notice by Michel & Associates (on an unrelated concern). Nestled in that email blast, was a reference to this case.
Low and behold, the CRPA attorneys have made public their response. While we don't don't have the opening brief by the CA DOJ, we now have the appellee's response. If you have followed the CA handgun Ammo virtual ban case, this brief will delight you in its clarity. |
January 30, 2013, 03:20 PM | #35 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Waking up this "dead" thread with the latest (although somewhat dated) info from the CA appeals court.
The appellants filed their reply brief on Sept. 26, 2012: Appellants’ Reply Brief Here, the appellants/defendants argue that a facial challenge to the law, that the law must be vague in all of its applications for a challenge to succeed. Then on Oct. 9, 2012, a pair of amici curiae filed briefs in support of the respondent (plaintiff). They are:
The appellants were given 30 days to respond to the amici briefs and on Nov. 13, 2012, they filed their response: Appellants Answer to Amicus Briefs of FFL Guard, LLC and Gun Owners of California and Law Enforcement Alliance of America. A summary of the rebuttal is in the second paragraph of page 5 of the pdf: Quote:
|
|
May 19, 2013, 12:49 PM | #36 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In other news, not entirely related to this case, California Lawyer, Chuck Michel, was Honored with NRA Defender of Justice Award. This award was given at the convention in Houston.
In other threads, I have disparaged the NRA-ILA for some of its lawsuits. I think I've made it clear that my remarks were meant for specific cases. If not, let me make that very clear with this post: Any disparaging remarks about the litigation efforts of the NRA-ILA are meant to be viewed in the context of the specific litigation in the thread that the remarks are posted. No more, no less. The law firm headed by Chuck Michel is perhaps the foremost 2A litigator in CA. It is the "goto" firm when the NRA and/or the CRPA need expert litigators. They are, perhaps the best of the best, when it comes to defending the 2A against the anti-gun legislators in CA. In this, I applaud the NRA-ILA in delivering this award to Chuck Michel. It is well deserved. My respect and thanks go to Chuck, himself, and to his associates. Sean? Clint? that means you guys too! |
May 19, 2013, 10:51 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Checked the docket and here is the status. On May 9. 2013, the court announced that it was ready to decide the case without the benefit of oral argument, unless requested by a party. On May 16, the State requested oral argument. Argument will likely be scheduled in the next 45-90 days, and the court will then have 90 days to issue its decision. So we can expect a decision by early fall, perhaps sooner.
The up side of this case is that the odds favor affirmance of the trial court decision. The downside is that last year the Legislature passed a bill that sought to correct the deficiencies of this law. Governor Brown in vetoing the new bill suggested that any new law should await the resolution of the lawsuit--which is pretty smart thinking because if there is a reversal and Brown had signed the new law, there would be competing statutes on the books. Not dissuaded by this obvious logic, the vetoed bill (or some modification thereof) is up for consideration in the Legislature again this term. The big difference now is that there is a veto killing supermajority of gun banning democrats in both houses. |
November 9, 2013, 11:21 AM | #38 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The CA Appellate Court has issued their opinion on the afternoon of Nov. 6th. Clint Monfort (an attorney with Michel & Associates) has reported this over at CGN:
Quote:
|
|
November 12, 2013, 03:50 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
This last legislative session we dodged a bullet on a new law that would amend and repeal this unconstitutionally vague one, replacing it with a similar law applicable to ALL ammo. That law failed to garner enough votes and was allowed to be withdrawn, a legislative device intended to permit the proposal to be refilled, so we will see it again. While undoubtedly the south state politicos would like to get this passed, I think the AG's office would have a stroke because they can't even keep track of guns, much less millions of rounds of ammunition, nor do they have the hardware or software that would allow any meaningful use of the data the bill requires the vendor to record and report to the Department of Justice. The bill seems t intentionally avoid the question of the massive costs that would be imposed for implementing such a law, as well as the continuing costs for the staff necessary to process it. I have little doubt that if such bill is passed, it will turn out to be the same sort of multimillion dollar fiasco as the system NY implemented to try to individually identify fired shell casings from semi-auto pistols.
|
November 12, 2013, 06:41 PM | #40 |
Member
Join Date: March 11, 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 49
|
Ammo Registration
Just to note in passing, New York State's new SAFE Act requires registration of all ammunition sales in the state, including on-line and mail sales. In addition, each ammunition purchase must be approved by a state police version of the NICS check. (Some genius assumed approvals would go thru the FBI NICS system, but the feds vetoed that plan.) The dealer can collect a $10 fee for his efforts.
It looks like California missed theaxe on this one.
__________________
"There is nothing so frightening as ignorance in action." |
November 15, 2013, 10:42 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,135
|
The background check for each ammo purchase seems ridiculous and expensive for the purchase of small amounts of ammo. I'm sure this will simply result in bulk purchases by those who shoot even moderate amounts or prompt shooters to buy in-person, out-of-state. The smarter ones would purchase from a store a little deeper into a neighboring state and would toss boxes or other material which lists the lot number so as to avoid easy tracing.
|
November 18, 2013, 05:40 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Not me Jim. I'd keep the boxes. They prove I bought the stuff out of state. Track away, you'll find out it came from Next Door, One State Over.
|
January 26, 2014, 12:54 PM | #43 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
To keep everyone up to date on this case, December 16th, the CA-DOJ filed a petition for review with the CA Supreme Court: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...for-Review.pdf
Then on January 10th, the Respondents filed their answer in opposition to review: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...or-Review-.pdf On January 21, the State filed its reply: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...for-Review.pdf We now wait for a grant or denial of review. |
January 26, 2014, 09:38 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Al,
Thank you very much for keeping us up to date on all the on going cases. This section is really the only reason I visit Firing Line these days. |
January 27, 2014, 11:41 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: Campbell Ca
Posts: 1,090
|
Calguns is becoming quite a force
Other states that may be creeping towards nanny statedom might want to take a page from Calguns. A lot of first class minds and contributors involved.
|
February 4, 2014, 02:27 PM | #46 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2011
Posts: 13
|
This is an NRA Supported Lawsuit
Colt46, to be clear, Calguns has nothing to do with this case. Our firm represents the CRPA Foundation in this lawsuit and the NRA is supporting the case.
|
February 20, 2014, 12:30 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
Feb 19, 2014 the California Supreme Court accepted the CA Attorney General's petition for review.
__________________
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|