Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: NRA gears up to sue Richmond, CA over magazine possession ban

  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=235138
    Richmond Magazine Possesion Ban Legal Challenge





    PRELITIGATION DEMAND LETTER SERVED ON RICHMOND OFFICIALS
    RE: REPEAL OF CITY'S MAGAZINE POSSESSION BAN


    On behalf of its clients the NRA and CRPA, the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. sent a pre-litigation demand letter to the City of Richmond, California and Richmond City Council members on Friday, October 23 damanding that the City's ordinance banning the possession of "high capacity" magazines be repealed.

    By sending the letter before filing a lawsuit, the chances of recovering attorny fees if a lawsuit has to be filed are increased.

    The letter notes that the city's ban of "large-capacity" (can hold over 10 rounds) magazines is ineffective, infringes on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and is preempted by state law.

    Over the past several weeks we have been lining up plaintiffs in anticipation that the City will decline to repeal the ordinance.

    We will post updates as the case progresses.

    To read the letter and subsequent court filings and correspondence, please visit www.calgunlaws.com.

    Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the right to keep and bear arms.


    __________________
    C. D. "Chuck" Michel
    MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
    Attorneys at Law
    Los Angeles Office
    180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200
    Long Beach, CA 90802
    Main: 562-216-4444 / Direct: 562-216-4441
    Fax: 562-216-4445 / Email: cmichel@michelandassociates.com
    Website: www.chuckmichel.com
    Gun law info: www.calgunlaws.com
    artwork by Oleg Volk:


  2. #2
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Richmond Magazine Possesion Ban Legal Challenge





    PRELITIGATION DEMAND LETTER SERVED ON RICHMOND OFFICIALS
    RE: REPEAL OF CITY'S MAGAZINE POSSESSION BAN


    On behalf of its clients the NRA and CRPA, the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. sent a pre-litigation demand letter to the City of Richmond, California and Richmond City Council members on Friday, October 23 damanding that the City's ordinance banning the possession of "high capacity" magazines be repealed...

    Good for the NRA and CRPA!






  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...19#post3309719


    UPDATE! NRA's CA lawyers seeking Plaintiffs to attack Richmond, CA hicap magazine ban





    *** UPDATED Tues 03 Nov 2009 - see below in RED ***

    As many of you know, the city of Richmond, CA has a local ban on high capacity magazines (those holding over 10 rounds in the caliber for which they were designed).

    Richmond's local hicap mag ban is more severe than California state law regulating magazines, and can effect quite a few folks who legitmately own hicap magazines (including, apparently, LEO nonduty guns, etc.) I also note Highway I80, a major route, passes thru Richmond's limits, and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (part of 580) does as well.

    Thus, a "preemption" challenge of this law, by NRA's California lawyers at Michel & associates (Chuck Michel, with able assistance Clint Monfort and Sean Brady) is underway, please see http://www.calgunlaws.com



    * * CHUCK NEEDS PLAINTIFFS!! * *

    (I'd like to borrow Charles Schwab's ad slogan, "Talk to Chuck!" but you'll actually be talking with Sean Brady initially.)

    Desirable plaintiffs should either:
    • live in Richmond, and otherwise legally possess hicap magazines
      for otherwise-legal firearms;

    • have a legal reason for passing thru Richmond on a regular basis with high-capacity magazine(s) for otherwise-legal firearms.

    • NEW/UPDATED: anyone with a CCW and legit hicap magazines for their carry piece.

    • NEW/UPDATED: anyone who fairly regularly avoids Richmond while travelling with
      hicaps. An example might be someone in in North Bay who shoots at Chabot and
      takes a more indirect route to Chabot (thru SF to Bay Bridge->880) to avoid Richmond.

    • NEW/UPDATED: If you have travelled, or do travel, to or thru Richmond with
      hicaps. Remember you are talking to an attorney and have privacy/privilege.

    1. THERE'S NO CHARGE TO YOU... Wayne's picking up the tab!

    2. Your real name won't be used in suit: you'll be a "John Doe" plaintiff.


    In relation to this matter, Chuck & crew are especially interested if you legally possess one or more of the following firearms:
    • Bren Ten
    • Brno CZ-83
    • Grendel P-31 Auto Pistol
    • Goncz High-Tech Long Pistol (9mm, .30 Mauser, .38 Super)
    • MAB PA-15
    • Heckler & Koch SP89
    • Korth Auto Pistol
    • Mountain Eagle
    • Norinco 88SP
    • QFI Victory MC 5
    • Uzi
    • Vector CP
    • Steel City "War Eagle" Pistol
    • Steyr GB Double Action

    (Don't ask why, just think.)

    Since those possessing hicap magazines within the city limits of Richmond are in violation of law, we strongly recommend you do NOT disclose here, or any other public forum, that you do possess a hicap magazine within the city limits of Richmond.

    Again, if you do participate as a plaintiff, your real name will not be used in the lawsuit and you will be a "Doe" plaintiff.

    If you do fit the description of a potential plaintiff, or know someone who does, please contact attorney


    Sean Brady
    Michel & Asssociates
    562 / 216 - 4444.
    You can safely discuss your legal situation with Sean.


    Thanks!

    Notes:

    1. We'd appreciate keeping this thread clear of comments.
    And most of you all know there's no privacy on the Net, so
    any posts/queries here under your userID could be traceable,
    and associations (incorrect or otherwise) could be made.

    2. Try to be a fairly close of a match as possible. Random driving
    thru Richmond, or "I could drive there if you want me to" is not
    what we're looking for - especially when there are people who
    drive thru Richmond regularly to shoots or when otherwise legally
    transporting a legal firearm on a fairly regular basis thru there.

    3. I will reiterate that Chuck has repeatedly told gunnies to
    "not be a martyr". Don't be silly - let's do things right!


    __________________

    -----------------------
    Bill Wiese
    San Jose, CA



    CGF Board Member /NRA Patron Member / CRPA Life Member



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    no offense but why does this even matter? Lifting the mag-cap law on a city doesnt matter since its already illegal in the state as well.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769

    Post imported post

    Some people in CA were lucky enough to have them before the ban and were therefore grandfathered in. I think that's what its all about.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    poothrowingape wrote:
    no offense but why does this even matter? Lifting the mag-cap law on a city doesn't matter since its already illegal in the state as well.

    Possession is not banned in CA; manufacture, importation, sales, and give away however are. Possession is banned in Richmond.

    Richmond is the nail sticking up, giving us the opportunity to make good case law and teach cities not to play these localprohibition games. It also puts cases in the pipeline to take advantage of the upcoming Supreme Court 'McDonald vs Chicago" decision expected next summer.

    artwork by Oleg Volk:


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    oh ok. awesome

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    poothrowingape wrote:
    no offense but why does this even matter? Lifting the mag-cap law on a city doesnt matter since its already illegal in the state as well.
    I was going to say what does it really matter anyway? Why would you need high capacity magazines when you can't buy ammo in this friggen state?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    J.A.G. wrote:
    I was going to say what does it really matter anyway? Why would you need high capacity magazines when you can't buy ammo in this friggen state?
    lol +10 for being funny and true!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    when you dont have the ammo High Cap mags hurt more when you have to throw them to defend yourself....




    edit (typo)

Posting Permissions

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