PDA

View Full Version : Richmond Magazine Possesion Ban Legal Challenge


CDMichel
10-26-2009, 8:51 AM
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on Friday, October 23 damanding that the City's ordinance banning the possession of "high capacity" magazines be repealed.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.

wash
10-26-2009, 9:22 AM
This sounds good.

Please keep us updated on your progress.

Thanks Chuck.

Fjold
10-26-2009, 9:38 AM
I have marked my calendar for 30 days to see what the response is.

gotgunz
10-26-2009, 9:41 AM
That should really piss them off, LOL.

odysseus
10-26-2009, 10:05 AM
Right on!

Joe
10-26-2009, 10:20 AM
:D great work

Vtec44
10-26-2009, 10:22 AM
Good work!

Sniper3142
10-26-2009, 10:22 AM
Outstanding!

Please let us all know how they respond.

bwiese
10-26-2009, 10:30 AM
Way to go, Chuck.

I like it when cities have to pay the NRA and its lawyers.

That's a beautiful letter on multiple fronts. Aside from bringing up the expected preemption chanllege, it
- uses the Unsafe Handgun Act in supporting the takedown of the Richmond ordnance;
- it directly links a Heller-stricken required behavior in DC to a very parallel disablement circumstance in Richmond.

bigcalidave
10-26-2009, 9:14 PM
Good job! Can't wait for some more cities / counties to get the fear of chuck in their hearts!

CHS
10-27-2009, 7:48 PM
NIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

pingpong
10-28-2009, 11:42 PM
Whoa, I wasn't even aware that Richmond had a ban on possession. And to think, I go to Richmond Rod and Gun so much...

Shotgun Man
10-29-2009, 1:01 PM
You have to register to read the demand letter?

ke6guj
10-29-2009, 1:08 PM
sweeeeeeeeet.


Whoa, I wasn't even aware that Richmond had a ban on possession. And to think, I go to Richmond Rod and Gun so much...yup, and here was a thread where they were looking for plaintiffs, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=231553&highlight=richmond

Purple K
10-31-2009, 2:28 PM
This is why I rarely go to Bullseye in San Rafael or Richmond Rod & Gun.

tonelar
10-31-2009, 2:39 PM
This is why I rarely go to Bullseye in San Rafael or Richmond Rod & Gun.

San Rafael has a similar ordinance?

elrcastor
10-31-2009, 2:48 PM
San Rafael has a similar ordinance?

you have to go through Richmond if you take the Richmond/San Rafael bridge

sbrady@Michel&Associates
11-03-2009, 1:18 PM
Chuck's office is still seeking people to participate as plaintiffs in this lawsuit (i.e. Richmond High Cap Mag case). PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS AD HERE; see link below for characteristics of plaintiffs we need, and for my contact information:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=231553

wildhawker
11-03-2009, 5:49 PM
Updated link to bwiese's new thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=237576

Steyrlp10
11-03-2009, 5:55 PM
Thanks for keeping us in the loop.

Swiss
11-12-2009, 11:07 AM
What's the status on this? Has the City of Richmond responded yet?

I'm no longer able to view or find the demand letter. Is there an updated link?

510shooter510
11-12-2009, 11:26 AM
Richmond: a perfect example of gun control NOT working. Good job

Super Spy
11-12-2009, 11:34 AM
I totally agree with what your doing. I wonder though with the state having a High Cap Mag ban in place, what good does it do if you win? You still can't legally use high cap mags unless you have old pre ban ones.

bwiese
11-12-2009, 12:44 PM
I totally agree with what your doing. I wonder though with the state having a High Cap Mag ban in place, what good does it do if you win? You still can't legally use high cap mags unless you have old pre ban ones.

Yes, from the narrower viewpoint. Looking at the "big picture":

(1) this reinforces post-SF Prop H preemption: it spanks municipalities
for violating the (state preemption) law. They will ultimately be less
likely to pass more bad local law burning our time & effort, or getting
folks in trouble.

(2) many gun owners (incl myself) do indeed have hicaps, and I80
is a major thoroughfare conveying many such gunnies up & down
the state.

(3) Perhaps other incidental pro-gun matters bounce off this too.
We also get to see who our opposition is, who's driving it, etc.

CDMichel
11-14-2009, 10:00 AM
In response to our letter demanding that the City of Richmond repeal its ordinance banning the possession of large-capacity magazines, the City has been talking to us about the possibility of repealing the ordinance. Though we are skeptical, on Friday 11/13 the Richmond City Attorney informed our office that the City expects to reach a decision as to whether it will initiate the repeal process by December 1, 2009, and asked us to hold off on filing suit until then.

We agreed to the extension in light of the fact that a court would not appreciate a case being filed when a city is asking for this short amount of time.

And in the meantime, we continue to seek plaintiffs.

We are not stopping our preparation of the lawsuit, because we anticipate that the City will decline to repeal the ordinance entirely. More likley they may try to revise it.

We will post updates as the case progresses.

To read the letter and subsequent court filings and correspondence as they become available, please visit www.calgunlaws.com and sign up for alerts.

bwiese
11-14-2009, 1:08 PM
Chuck - thanks for the update!

AndrewMendez
11-15-2009, 7:13 PM
I love it!

pTa
11-15-2009, 7:39 PM
excellent/ I go to Richmond Rod and Gun semi regularly
while my mag locked AR has only 10 round cap magazines/ some of my pistols have 12 round mags


PS; Berkely has an ordinance where its ilegal to have any rifle/ carbine with greater than 10 round capacity/ I thought this was an urban legend

bwiese
11-15-2009, 7:58 PM
excellent/ I go to Richmond Rod and Gun semi regularly
while my mag locked AR has only 10 round cap magazines/ some of my pistols have 12 round mags

Well please contact Chuck's lawyers - we need plaintiffs. You sound like a near-perfect fit, and you should not disclose any more here to anyone.


PS; Berkely has an ordinance where its ilegal to have any rifle/ carbine with greater than 10 round capacity/ I thought this was an urban legend

Are you sure? If you have codes that would be nice.
We can maybe roll up two-in-one...

fairfaxjim
11-17-2009, 7:21 PM
I haven't seen the one on 10 round rifles, but this one exists:
Berkeley Municipal code,
Chapter 13.74
BAN ON SALE AND POSSESSION OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS
13.74.030 Sale or possession of semi-automatic weapons prohibited.
A. Except as herein provided, no person shall sell, offer or display for sale, give, manufacture, lend or transfer ownership of, or possess any semi-automatic weapon, as herein defined, within the City of Berkeley.

B. So as to facilitate the orderly disposition of the weapons covered by this chapter, any individual or entity within the City of Berkeley in possession of such weapons upon the effective date of this chapter shall have fifteen calendar days to remove said weapon from within the City limits, or to transfer title and possession of such weapon either to a dealer licensed pursuant to Article 4 of the California Penal Code (commencing at Section 12250), or to the City of Berkeley Police Department.

It looks like driving down the eastshore I80 with an OLL rifle, or any semi auto firearm, is against the People's Republik of Berzerkely law.

bwiese
11-18-2009, 11:16 AM
It appears that Berkekely code is 'on the books' but they understand not to enforce it.

The problem, I've been told, is there's little case law requiring cities to expend efforts/costs to depublish bad law that is out of force due to court decisions, preemption, etc.

wash
11-18-2009, 11:40 AM
I haven't checked this section in a few days. It's great news that Richmond is considering a repeal.

I wonder if there is a polite way to let them know that anything less than a complete repeal would still generate a costly lawsuit. Otherwise they will probably re-write the ordinance just to remove the standing of your plaintiffs.

If they do try to pull a fast one, please put the full force of the NRA on them, let everyone know that it's useless and expensive to keep bad gun laws on the books.

Swiss
12-01-2009, 12:20 PM
From Richmond Confidential (http://richmondconfidential.org/2009/12/01/city-council-preview-%e2%80%94-dec-1/)

By: Josh Wolf
|
December 1, 2009 – 6:01 am
| Filed Under: Changing City, Front | Tagged: bulkhead , guns , medical marijuana , pool , pot , the plunge , Tom Butt
Share this Article!
At Tuesday’s meeting the City Council is scheduled to discuss guns, pot and The Plunge swimming pool.

But before the council dives into the meat of the meeting, Mayor Gayle McLaughlin will honor three local restaurants: La Plazuela, La Selva Taqueria and Pepito’s Deli and Mexicatessen as small businesses of the month.

It’s illegal to carry gun magazine clips that can hold more than 10 rounds in the City of Richmond under a 2007 city ordinance, but the ban may not be constitutionally valid, according to a report by City Attorney Randy Riddle. He said Richmond is the only city in California that bans these magazines, but the city is only allowed to charge people violating the law with misdemeanors. In addition to the constitutional concerns, some have expressed concerns about the law’s effectiveness. The council is considering to strengthen the law at a meeting next year, but Riddle has recommended the city repeal the ban in the meantime.

<Snip>

thempopresense
12-01-2009, 12:31 PM
forward then reverse.....

chuckdc
12-01-2009, 12:38 PM
Whoa, I wasn't even aware that Richmond had a ban on possession. And to think, I go to Richmond Rod and Gun so much...

Oops, same here. I used to go up there and shoot the TASC and Hot Shots matches.

tiki
12-01-2009, 12:54 PM
The council is considering to strengthen the law at a meeting next year, but Riddle has recommended the city repeal the ban in the meantime.


Oh, so they will repeal it and come back with one that is more unconstitutional? Nice. The concern wasn't about the weakness of the law, but, rather, its unconstitutionality.
I don't believe they will come back with anything. Its just words to appease anyone that would oppose the repeal.

CHS
12-01-2009, 2:00 PM
Oh, so they will repeal it and come back with one that is more unconstitutional? Nice. The concern wasn't about the weakness of the law, but, rather, its unconstitutionality.



Actually, the main legal concern was that it was already pre-empted by state law.

bwiese
12-01-2009, 2:06 PM
Actually, the main legal concern was that it was already pre-empted by state law.

Yup, the City Attorney appears to be a rational guy and understands the issues.

Remarks by the Council may just be posturing that they're gonna keep up the fight.

GuyW
12-01-2009, 3:46 PM
....the City has been talking to us about the possibility of repealing the ordinance.....because we anticipate that the City will decline to repeal the ordinance entirely. More likely they may try to revise it.


Ha ha! Wary enough to suspect that change is in the air, but too stupid to appreciate the hammer that is about to fall....
.

curtisfong
12-01-2009, 4:05 PM
there's little case law requiring legislators at any level to expend efforts/costs to depublish bad law that is out of force due to court decisions, preemption, etc.

There, fixed it for you.

Sgt Raven
12-01-2009, 4:29 PM
The problem, I've been told, is there's little case law requiring legislators at any level to expend efforts/costs to depublish bad law that is out of force due to court decisions, preemption, etc.

That's a problem the courts really needs to address as there are to many bad laws that are out of force but can still cause problems in the short run, causing people to spend money on lawyers that they shouldn't have to.

Just look how Harrot changed the law in California, but the regulations haven't been changed to reflect it. It just causes FUD at all levels of government.

Liberty1
12-29-2009, 3:00 PM
I just found this thread now. Any updates?



http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=246009

and congrats on 1.3 posts per year :p JK :)