PDA

View Full Version : NRA Lawyers Obtain LCAV Memo Re: Richmond LCM Repeal Demand Ltr.


CMonfort
01-08-2010, 2:03 PM
We recently obtained a memorandum drafted by the LCAV in response to the repeal demand letter served on the City of Richmond threatening suit over its large-capacity magazine ban. Some of the counter arguments presented seem to defy any sense of reason or logic, and completely disregard the court's ruling in Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco. For example, in response to the claim that the City's ordinance effectively bans firearms for which a smaller-capacity magazine is not available, the LCAV provided the following advice to the City:

"However, even if certain firearms can only function with LCM's and the Richmond ordinance requires the removal or surrender of those LCM's, those facts alone do not threaten the validity of the ordinance, since persons previously in possession of LCMs were given the opportunity to remove them from the City when the ordinance was adopted. At that time, those persons could have sold their firearm and LCMs legally in accordance with section 12020, recovered their market value, and replaced them with firearms without LCMs."

Really???

If Fiscal made anything clear, it is that local governmenst CANNOT BAN GUNS, and are preempted from doing so by state law.

"...[W]e infer from Penal Code section 12026 that the Legislature intended to occupy the field of residential handgun possession to the exclusion of local governmental entities.... In our view, Doe correctly interpreted Penal Code section 12026 as depriving local entities of any power to regulate handgun possession on private property." (Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, 158 Cal.App. 4th 895, 908 (2008).)

Taking the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind LCAV's argument to the next logical step, one can only wonder if LCAV would contend that cities can ban whatever handguns they like, so long as there is at least one gun on the DOJ roster that they could buy with the proceeds from selling the banned guns?

As shocking as LCAV's counter arguments may seem, the anti-gun organization goes on to suggest that they have found a law firm that is willing to defend the City pro bono in any lawsuit over an LCM banning ordinance. We will of course be sure to remind the City of Richmond that San Francisco, who was represented by that same firm in Fiscal, still shelled out $380,000 to cover the petitioners' attorneys' fees in that case.

We will continue to post responsive documents this and other Public Records Act requests at the appropriate time at www.calgunlaws.com. Please be sure to register to view the posted documents in their entirety.

Glock22Fan
01-08-2010, 2:11 PM
Go! Clint and Chuck, Go!

Thank you for your ongoing efforts and for keeping us informed.

obeygiant
01-08-2010, 2:20 PM
We will of course be sure to remind the City of Richmond that San Francisco, who was represented by that same firm in Fiscal, still shelled out $380,000 to cover the petitioners' attorneys' fees in that case.

bwahahaha! :rofl2: Great work Clint and Chuck!

CMonfort
01-08-2010, 3:10 PM
My pleasure. Thank you.

navyinrwanda
01-08-2010, 3:21 PM
LCAV's response isn't surprising. Their California strategy is to help sympathetic officials pass incremental restrictions at the city and county level, expecting that no one will notice or fight. After a few years, they commission a report proclaiming the "success" of these restrictions, and push to have them adopted at the state level.

This was their successful game plan for AB 962.

GoodEyeSniper
01-08-2010, 3:31 PM
the only response that comes to mind is:

um... LOL

IrishPirate
01-08-2010, 3:35 PM
they set 'em up.....you knock 'em down. good job, and good luck!

-hanko
01-08-2010, 3:43 PM
Ironic in the sense that Richmond is definitely somewhere where large (standard) capacity magazines might come in handy.:D

-hanko

hoffmang
01-08-2010, 3:43 PM
Clint,

Is the LCAV memo posted on CalGunLaws?

-Gene

CMonfort
01-08-2010, 4:12 PM
No, not at this time.

hoffmang
01-08-2010, 4:49 PM
No, not at this time.

I understand.

-Gene

Kid Stanislaus
01-08-2010, 6:08 PM
Whatta joy it is to have sharp, competent people fighting on our side. Let me give you a great big THANK YOU!

timdps
01-08-2010, 6:52 PM
[QUOTE=CMonfort;3609742] At that time, those persons could have sold their firearm and LCMs legally in accordance with section 12020, recovered their market value, and replaced them with firearms without LCMs."[/I]
QUOTE]

I see, so LVAV is actually admitting that the ordinance is a partial gun ban, not just a magazine ban.

Hopefully this will give the City of Richmond a wake-up call as to how they are being used as pawns by LCAV, so they can unstick themselves from this potentially very expensive ordinance.

How many of these LCAV sponsored ordinances have been struck down, and at what cost? Might be an idea to make up a list (stuck down ordinances and costs to cities) and use it to prempt LCAV from getting access to city councils in critical areas.

Tim

SkatinJJ
01-08-2010, 7:35 PM
You guys are beautiful!!!!

Thank you very much.

Semper FI!!!

JJ

bwiese
01-08-2010, 7:54 PM
Your California NRA lawyers at work!

Do all please understand this is not just about hicap mags in Richmond - it's about taking down LCAV.

wilit
01-08-2010, 8:17 PM
Is there any record of how many people have been prosecuted for being in possession of an LCM in Richmond? If that number is in the single digits, I as a city councilman would seriously question the usefulness of this ordinance.

trashman
01-08-2010, 9:42 PM
Nice work, Clint!! Can't wait to see this play out in court...

--Neill

MP301
01-08-2010, 10:51 PM
LCAV is Legal Community Against Violence..

It shout be:

LCAG Legal community Against Guns.

If they really cared about Violence, they they would know that excessive restrictions promote violence...ask England and Australia, they will tell ya!

Keep up the great work! We are all enjoying this fight now....

N6ATF
01-10-2010, 1:59 AM
Loving Criminals Armed & Violent

Swiss
01-11-2010, 10:16 PM
What's the likely action for the 1/19/10 council meeting? Repeal the ordinance or will they fight it?

I thought they voted in favor of repealing the ordinance - how many readings does it take to dismantle one anyway?

Gio
01-11-2010, 10:32 PM
From what I heard LCAV was a bunch of jokers that had no support at the last hearing back in Dec :laugh: I am sure they are anti-violence, but they also forget that people have 6,000 pound cars that can be used to commit violent acts and just about anything else in the heat of the moment. So let's ban cars and just about anything that can be used in a violent manner :rolleyes: I am glad that there are people on our side fighting to keep CA from being such a Nanny State.

-Gio

Swiss
01-15-2010, 6:00 PM
From the consent calendar for the 1/19/10 City Council meeting (posted today):

I-5. ADOPT an ordinance (second reading) repealing Richmond Municipal Code
Chapter 11.98, which bans the possession of large capacity magazines for guns,
consistent with prior Council direction to staff to explore alternative legislative
approaches to addressing public safety threats posed by large capacity magazines
in guns - City Attorney's Office (Randy Riddle 620-6509).

tube_ee
01-15-2010, 8:13 PM
From the consent calendar for the 1/19/10 City Council meeting (posted today):

I-5. ADOPT an ordinance (second reading) repealing Richmond Municipal Code
Chapter 11.98, which bans the possession of large capacity magazines for guns,
consistent with prior Council direction to staff to explore alternative legislative
approaches to addressing public safety threats posed by large capacity magazines
in guns - City Attorney's Office (Randy Riddle 620-6509).

We'll know we've won when Staff comes back to the Council with some variation of the following language:

Staff could not find any public safety threat posed by large capacity magazines in guns. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Council take no action in this regard.

Eagerly awaiting that day...

--Shannon

7x57
01-15-2010, 11:45 PM
Your California NRA lawyers at work!

Do all please understand this is not just about hicap mags in Richmond - it's about taking down LCAV.

An endeavor in which there is not simply justice but pleasure. :-)

Would it be unseemly to name a hen Sayre? I've been wanting fresh eggs for breakfast recently, and I just thought.... :43:

7x57

wildhawker
01-15-2010, 11:52 PM
An endeavor in which there is not simply justice but pleasure. :-)

Would it be unseemly to name a hen Sayre? I've been wanting fresh eggs for breakfast recently, and I just thought.... :43:

7x57

Every time you disappear on us you come back speaking less plain and a bit more twisted. :43:

I encourage this, and am glad to see you back in the mix.

7x57
01-16-2010, 12:03 AM
Every time you disappear on us you come back speaking less plain and a bit more twisted. :43:


Um...thanks? :D

Or must I now say "Grazie"?


I encourage this, and am glad to see you back in the mix.

Among other things, I've been putting some time into doing political things that bring me in contact with gunnies outside the NRA/Calguns information backbone.

But I was missing Calguns.

See you tomorrow?

7x57

wildhawker
01-16-2010, 12:20 AM
I don't want to get too OT here but unfortunately I will not be able to attend tomorrow. However, I will be down at least once before May.

Um...thanks? :D

Or must I now say "Grazie"?



Among other things, I've been putting some time into doing political things that bring me in contact with gunnies outside the NRA/Calguns information backbone.

But I was missing Calguns.

See you tomorrow?

7x57

FreedomIsNotFree
01-16-2010, 12:39 AM
Considering how flush with cash the city of Richmond is, I'm sure they will be more than happy to fight for their ordinance in court, regardless if it may cost them hundreds of thousands in attorney fees. :rolleyes:

Surf&Skeet
01-16-2010, 5:12 PM
Considering how flush with cash the city of Richmond is, I'm sure they will be more than happy to fight for their ordinance in court, regardless if it may cost them hundreds of thousands in attorney fees. :rolleyes:

I assume you're being sarcastic, but if they do fight the NRA it is a win-win for RKBA. We drain the resources of LCAV, fill the coffers of the NRA with antis' money to use to fight antis another day, and put another anti-head trophy on the RKBA wall. All good, unless of course you happen to be a taxpayer in Richmond. I do feel sorry for them, but they kinda share a part of the blame for not ousting the fools who run that City.

N6ATF
01-16-2010, 10:36 PM
Considering how flush with cash the city of Richmond is, I'm sure they will be more than happy to fight for their ordinance in court, regardless if it may cost them hundreds of thousands in attorney fees. :rolleyes:

Yep, and they will do whatever it takes to raise taxes to make up for it.