• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Recent CA ruling on upholding assault weapon ban

luckyykid

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
74
Location
Meriden, CT
What are your thoughts on this case in it's relation to the future of the legal challenges of the new laws here in CT? I was honestly shocked at this ruling because I thought for sure when it was legally challenged as being a 2A violation, the court would have ruled that it was mainly because of the "common use" issue. (Granted it's California)....

Not sure how millions of legal AR owners doesn't qualify an AR as being in common use.

So, what do people here think that will mean for the CT lawsuit/challenge to the law?

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/c...nt-protect-semi-autos-like-aks/#axzz2iaKq1Lt6
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
This was the California Court of Appeals. It is meaningless. Trying to challenge that kind of broad issue in state court is never going to be a good idea.

See: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/benjamin_v_bailey.txt

We can expect the federal districts to be split as well. Unfriendly districts are certainly not going to rule in a good way to facial challenges.

Agreed,

This will have to end up in the Supreme Court. The District it will go through is in SF and they are very liberal.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Even in this state, when they put the word "type" into the description, it limits it to that manaufacturer:

from Bailey:

With respect to the third phrase, one of the plaintiffs' own
experts, engineer Charles Fagg, was able to identify Auto-Ordnance
Thompson weapons. He also identified many weapons that, in his
opinion, were "like" such weapons. Indeed, the plaintiffs' claim
relies on the proposition that the phrase is facially vague not
because no firearm comes within its core, but because too many
firearms do. Nonetheless, on cross-examination Fagg himself felt
sufficiently certain of the characteristics of an "Auto-Ordnance
Thompson type" firearm that he testified concerning the firing
capabilities of such a weapon. Moreover, even if we could read the
phrase "Auto-Ordnance Thompson type" so broadly as to destroy its
core meaning, we decline to do so. "[W]e read the statute narrowly
in order to save its constitutionality, rather than broadly in
order to destroy it." State v. Indrisano, supra, 228 Conn. at 805,
640 A.2d 986. The state correctly points out that, consistent with
the principle of ejusdem generis, the phrase "Auto-Ordnance
Thompson type" should be interpreted to include only those Auto-
Ordnance Thompson firearms that share characteristics similar to
the other weapons listed in section 53-202a. See Scrapchansky v.
Plainfield, 226 Conn. 446, 455, 627 A.2d 1329 (1993); State v.
Russell, 218 Conn. 273, 278, 588 A.2d 1376 (1991). Our adoption of
this interpretive gloss provides a sufficient core of meaning to
remedy any facial vagueness that might otherwise exist. Cf. State
v. Indrisano, supra, at 805-806, 640 A.2d 986.


PA13-3 has: Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type and still has the Thompson one.

They wanted to cover all AK's but I think that they just limited it to those that Avtomat produced.

Of course, the other provisions would be looked at...
 
Top