Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: FEDERAL COURT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUED OVER 2ND A. VIOLATIONS!

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=179227

    SAF, CALGUNS FOUNDATION CHALLENGES CALIFORNIA HANDGUN BAN SCHEME

    For Immediate Release: 4/30/2009

    BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.

    California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.

    Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that California “tells Ivan Peña that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions,” he said. “A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government-approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee.”

    “The Para Ordnance P-13 was once approved for sale in California,” Peña noted, “but now that a manufacturer didn’t pay a yearly fee, California claims the gun I want to own has somehow become ‘unsafe’.”

    “The Glock-21 is the handgun I would choose for home defense, but California has decided the version I need is unacceptable. I was born without a right arm below my elbow and therefore the new ambidextrous version of the Glock-21 is the safest one for me. The identical model designed for right hand use is available in California, but I can’t use it,” said plaintiff Roy Vargas.

    Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “The Supreme Court’s decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether the State likes it or not. California needs to accept the Second Amendment reality.”

    Co-counsel Jason Davis remarked, “The California Handgun Roster has always been about making the possession of handguns for self defense more difficult by imposing arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions that limit choice and increase the cost of exercising a fundamental right.”

    Joining plaintiffs Peña and Vargas are Doña Croston and Brett Thomas. Doña Croston’s handgun would be allowed if it were black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’ merely based on color. “I didn’t realize that my constitutional rights depended on color. What is it about two colors that makes the gun I want to purchase ‘unsafe’?”

    Brett Thomas seeks to own the same model of handgun that the Supreme Court ordered District of Columbia officials to register for Dick Heller. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured, and its maker is no longer available to process the handgun’s certification through the bureaucracy.

    “There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun,” said Mr. Thomas.

    “The so-called ‘safe’ gun list is just another gun-grabbing gimmick,” said co-counsel Donald Kilmer. “California can’t get around the Second Amendment, as incorporated, by declaring most normal guns ‘unsafe,’ and gradually shrinking the number of so-called ‘safe’ guns to zero.”

    The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

    The Calguns Foundation (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a non-profit legal defense fund for California gun owners. The Calguns foundation works to educate government and the public and protect the rights of individuals to own and lawfully use firearms in California.

    Read the complaint!: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pen...-complaint.pdf

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elk Grove, California, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    Yeah, buddy!:celebrate



    Them: Are you a cop or a lawyer?

    Me: No, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Excellent! 'Wonder what 'Ahhnold' will say?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    148

    Post imported post

    Holy hell i love it. Best of luck guys. I'm up near lancaster most of the time and would love to sit in on a court day.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Awesome stuff, thanks for posting that, Cato! Very exciting news. Heard anything about anybody challanging the school zone or unloaded requirements? The area I used to live in was so densely packed with schools I'm not sure there is any route through that doesn't get within those zones...

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    Awesome stuff, thanks for posting that, Cato! Very exciting news. Heard anything about anybody challanging the school zone or unloaded requirements? The area I used to live in was so densely packed with schools I'm not sure there is any route through that doesn't get within those zones...
    Unfortunately, the "right people" think these issues are not a high priority. I firmly believe they do want to see these things challanged, but they simply put a higher value on CCW reform (among other issues).

    So, don't hold your breath on CGF moving forward with a open carry case anytime soon. Which means we have a higher chance of getting our case law from some drug addict or gang banger, which greatly decreases the chance we'll get good law out of it.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Well, there are cases in other states that might help to advance the cause in california. Like the 1000 yard school zone case in Wisconsin (that I don't have much detail about atm), which could provide some groundwork for breaking the CA law if it goes far enough in the court system.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    NightOwl wrote:
    Awesome stuff, thanks for posting that, Cato!* Very exciting news.* Heard anything about anybody challanging the school zone or unloaded requirements?* The area I used to live in was so densely packed with schools I'm not sure there is any route through that doesn't get within those zones...
    Unfortunately, the "right people" think these issues are not a high priority.* I firmly believe they do want to see these things challanged, but they simply put a higher value on CCW reform (among other issues).

    So, don't hold your breath on CGF moving forward with a open carry case anytime soon.* Which means we have a higher chance of getting our case law from some drug addict or gang banger, which greatly decreases the chance we'll get good law out of it.
    This is why I refuse to donate. It's such a willfully shortsighted approach I simply cannot condone it. I will continue to call it like I see it here on this forum until they change their tune. (Get used to the idea! )

    This isn't merely a matter of "the time not being right". The time has been right, and will be overripe for the reason you've mentioned if we let the issue stagnate. Calguns is perfectly fine with a future wherein California is a CC-only state. Count me out.

    And then I love the part where they act like it's persons like myself who are responsible for any lack of "sticking together". As though I'm the one with massive resources leaving the little guy out in the cold so I can pursue elitist and unconstitutional compromise positions. :quirky

    I mean, am I the only one who feels like the "unsafe" handgun "ban" is only marginally intrusive (unconstitutional as it may be), and is thus small potatoes compared to 12031 and 626.9?

    It's hard for me to get excited when the issues I've already learned to live with are focused on to the exclusion of those odious restrictions I can only barely live under.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    What I think CGF fails to see is that even "shall-issue" CCW isn't a win. In this state, I would be willing to bet shall-issue would result in a knee-jerk reaction by the legislature. I pointed this out on CGN, but I think my comment was largely ignored.

    Imagine the following scenario:
    -Court rules that "may issue" is a 14A equal protection violation.
    - CA Legislature passes a bill that removes the 12050 exemption from 626.9, 12031, & 171.
    - CCW permit would then become UCC, subject to all the limitations you face without a permit.

    Essentially, the legislature could easily turn that permission slip from an all access pass to a permit that only allows you to conceal, but nothing else.

    The problem is by the time this happens, we're almost certain to have bad case law in regards to 12031, 626.9, etc. So the battle will be even more uphill.

    I'm kinda worried that the "right people" may not be right on this one. While CCW & the 'safe' roster are easy pickin, they could wait. IMO 12031 & 626.9 should be the foundation, and move on from there.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Your analysis is astute and completely accurate, if unfortunate. +1

    Or should it be -1? :?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    All the legalese aside... why can't CA just follow the letter and intent of the Constitution w/o all the statutemumbo jumbo? 'Forget unconstitutional compromise? What is the CA state govt. afraid of? The people? What part of 'Shall not be infringed' escapes them? Not just in California... but the rest of these petty tyrannies masquerading as government. RIGHTS do not require license, permission or regulation.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    All the legalese aside... RIGHTS do not require license, permission or regulation.
    Nobody says it as clearly as Sonora Rebel. The tea party is all about taking our rights back and limiting the power of government. It is time that we take a stand and only elect people that agree with us.

  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    In as much as I also do not have a say in what lawsuits to pursue and question which might be of more value, I say let them start to fly whatever their pro 2A agenda!The more the merrier.

    I prefer the shotgun approach to clear theclose quartersand then sharpshoot the remainder!

    We need to start the tide change, if just to cause the current proposed garbage legislation (e.g., restricted ammunition sales) to falter.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    chesphoto wrote:
    It is time that we take a stand and only elect people that agree with us.
    Good luck.

    That said, I'm with you 100%.

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    All the legalese aside... why can't CA just follow the letter and intent of the Constitution w/o all the statute mumbo jumbo? 'Forget unconstitutional compromise? What is the CA state govt. afraid of? The people? What part of 'Shall not be infringed' escapes them? Not just in California... but the rest of these petty tyrannies masquerading as government. RIGHTS do not require license, permission or regulation.
    Tell that to the California legislature. And our police, for that matter.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    I prefer the shotgun approach to clear theclose quartersand then sharpshoot the remainder!
    That's really what I'd like to see. Incorporation gives us so many targets we should be using scatterguns and/or belt-fed weapons. IMO the "safe" handgun roster is an easy target, but not a threat so it should have been much lower on the priority list.

    The problem is that all the pro-2A organizations, from the little guys like Madison Society and CalGuns to the NRA, are not very concerned with open carry laws. They ALL care a lot more about CCW reform.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  16. #16
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Sadly, the people at Calguns are going with the easiest legislation to fix first. Notably the "safe gun" extortion roster (legitimate cause there) and CCW reform. The "Right People" seem to place a higher priority on the pad privilege than the natural right.

    Does this mean they're ignoring OC completely? No, especially after Nordyke.

    I've said it once and I'll continue to say it... The only way we're going to get organizations like NRA, GOA, Calguns etc on our side is when we become members and make our voices heard. Positive public interaction never hurts either.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    It's not a bad strategy to run up a list of successes before tackling the bigger issues. When CGF and SAF finally address the difficult issues like LOC and "assault weapons", they will be in a much stronger position if they can show a 1.000 batting average.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    All the legalese aside... why can't CA just follow the letter and intent of the Constitution w/o all the statute mumbo jumbo? 'Forget unconstitutional compromise? What is the CA state govt. afraid of? The people? What part of 'Shall not be infringed' escapes them? Not just in California... but the rest of these petty tyrannies masquerading as government. RIGHTS do not require license, permission or regulation.
    Tell that to the California legislature. And our police, for that matter.
    Not being a resident Californian for the past 40 years... I reckon y'all who live there should be doin' that. I think due to years of inculcation, indoctrinationand propaganda conditioning... focus seems to fall on government 'permission' to do anything. This is equally true in Maryland, DC, New Jersey, Illinois, New York etc. I suspect the idea is for some sort of incremental acceptance 'within' the law'. Well... the 'law' is unconstitutional. Those who enforce it are tyrannical... even if they don't think so. They don't know any better.Even if the thought creeps into their skulls... it'll be immediately countered with a 'Yeah... but...!'

    YET... these same 'legislators' will continue to invent Rights with moonbat interpretations of the 14A while completely disregarding the obvious Right to bear arms as clearly defined by the 2A w/o conditions.

  19. #19
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    I've said it once and I'll continue to say it... The only way we're going to get organizations like NRA, GOA, Calguns etc on our side is when we become members and make our voices heard. Positive public interaction never hurts either.

    +1


    Unless one can found and fund their own associations and cases (andlitigate it smartly - and Alan and Don are busy right now),I believe we should be supportive of ALL efforts to roll back and discourage CA's anti-self defense laws. Wegot bad case law last year in CA criminal courts saying 12031 doesn't violate the 2nd A.

    We need to build on and exploit our favorable case law as it exists under Heller first. Berlin wasn't taken the first year.

    If anyone hasn't read the complaint against CA please do. It's brilliant and shows how moronic the CA roster is). If federal judges keep having to look at cases where the state of Ca is clearly off it's sanity rocker and with good guy plaintiffs just wanting to defend themselves (the core 2nd A right) and own protected arms, then we stand a much better chance of building a favorable case law base, winning this war,and getting broader carry rights then we have now.

    (and in the interest of full disclousure, I do not represent the CGF, but Gene has covered my bar tab many times - and I've donated the corresponding amount to CGF)

    Read the complaint!: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pen...-complaint.pdf (it's not working PM sent to gene)

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    I've said it once and I'll continue to say it... The only way we're going to get organizations like NRA, GOA, Calguns etc on our side is when we become members and make our voices heard. Positive public interaction never hurts either.
    The "right people" at CGF know very well how myself a few others feel on this issue. I've been told how wrong I am to my face, how CGF "really does care" about OC and how I need to "stick together". Yet, of course, actions speak louder than words.

    They simply don't believe they time is (or presumably ever will be) "right". Donating the small amount of money I am able to would not help their coffers significantly, while it would signify to the "right people" that I condone and am satisfied with their course of action.

    Nothing could be farther from the truth.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    flintlock tom wrote:
    It's not a bad strategy to run up a list of successes before tackling the bigger issues. When CGF and SAF finally address the difficult issues like LOC and "assault weapons", they will be in a much stronger position if they can show a 1.000 batting average.
    A court doesn't give a flying @#$% what their "batting average" is.

    cato wrote:
    If federal judges keep having to look at cases where the state of Ca is clearly off it's sanity rocker and with good guy plaintiffs just wanting to defend themselves (the core 2nd A right) and own protected arms, then we stand a much better chance of building a favorable case law base, winning this war, and getting broader carry rights then we have now.
    Or, we'll get bad case law while CGF twiddles their thumbs challenging easy but non-threatening statutes, and courts will have the following precedent to look at: Law-abiding gun owners claiming they have a right to buy obscure models of handguns, and criminals claiming they have a right to be armed in school zones.

    Sorry, I'm not hopeful. In fact I'm rather depressed. It's a two-way street, so don't demand any "support" from me.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    oops

  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    flintlock tom wrote:
    It's not a bad strategy to run up a list of successes before tackling the bigger issues. When CGF and SAF finally address the difficult issues like LOC and "assault weapons", they will be in a much stronger position if they can show a 1.000 batting average.
    A court doesn't give a flying @#$% what their "batting average" is.
    I wasn't talking about the court's opinion.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    flintlock tom wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    flintlock tom wrote:
    It's not a bad strategy to run up a list of successes before tackling the bigger issues. When CGF and SAF finally address the difficult issues like LOC and "assault weapons", they will be in a much stronger position if they can show a 1.000 batting average.
    A court doesn't give a flying @#$% what their "batting average" is.
    I wasn't talking about the court's opinion.
    You were talking about support from Californians, then? You have a point, but I'm afraid that a few more donations aren't going to be the deciding factor.

  25. #25
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    Agreed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •