View Single Post
Old November 4, 2011, 09:19 PM   #23
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,541
Just to refresh your memory, back on May 6th in the Haynie v. CA case, the State made a Motion To Dismiss (item #26 on the docket). Then there was the relating of the Richards case to Haynie and consolidating the cases. On August 5th, the Court held a hearing on the MTD. The MTD was granted, based on the theory that neither Haynie or Richards had a realistic chance of been rearrested. The MTD also granted leave for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which was due today.

The amended complaint has been filed, with some startling information.

On August 14, 2011, RICHARDS was wrongfully arrested a second time for possession of an Assault Weapon and spent four (4) days in the Sonoma County jail awaiting bail. Again the charges against him were dismissed. He was factually innocent of the charges brought.3

The Motion to Dismiss brought by Defendants Harris and California Department of Justice was argued on August 5, 2011. Richards’ new arrest occurred on August 14, 2011, and the case was dismissed on September 19, 2011. Plaintiffs immediately brought this new development to the attention of the Defendants and asked if they would stipulate to a joint statement informing the Court of this new fact. The Defendants declined that invitation and the Plaintiff was not aware of any authority for alleging new facts once a Rule 12 motion has been submitted to the Court. A new case for wrongful arrest is being filed in this Court and a request to relate the cases will be made at the appropriate time.
What this complaint is now doing is to have the entire laws and regulations that define California Assault Weapons declared unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, for the reasons stated within the complaint.

The complaint also alleges that California Penal Code § 12031(e) is a legislatively enacted General Warrant and therefore violates the 4th amendment and is unconstitutional on its face (for those that don't know, that section of the CA penal code allows an officer to check your firearm to ensure that it is unloaded, without any warrant whatsoever).

Gotta love it when the gun-grabbers make your case for you!
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.04102 seconds with 7 queries