PDA

View Full Version : Harris considering appeal?


BluNorthern
01-19-2011, 10:00 PM
Didn't see this posted anywhere...

Regarding the repeal of AB 962...
"Parts of the law may still be implemented, and California's newly elected attorney general Kamala Harris is considering an appeal, spokesman Jim Finefrock said Wednesday.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/19/3336075/calif-judge-handgun-ammo-laws.html

Crom
01-19-2011, 10:23 PM
Don't know. Probably Kamala just political posturing at best. DeLeon is such a clown. His comments are deplorable.

Window_Seat
01-19-2011, 10:49 PM
KH would do it specifically in an attempt to piss us off. This is why we needed Cooley.

Erik.

Carnivore
01-19-2011, 11:19 PM
So as said before....the sky is blue and water is wet? Saw this coming from just about 400 miles away.

Werewolf1021
01-20-2011, 1:12 AM
I thought there was no way, barring reintroduction of a modified bill, it could be reinstated?

jtmkinsd
01-20-2011, 1:39 AM
I thought there was no way, barring reintroduction of a modified bill, it could be reinstated?

The AG can always appeal...just like we would if we lost. But the best thing possible happened, because if this didn't work, the law would have gone into effect while any appeal went through the system. From what I can glean from all sources though...it's dead.

Purple K
01-20-2011, 2:06 AM
KH will be a one term AG

OleCuss
01-20-2011, 4:20 AM
Never underestimate stupid. Kamala just might appeal despite what looks like very little chance that she could succeed. And even if she did succeed OOIDA and such are going to largely kill it anyway. . .

But for some, the posturing is more important than the success.

edwardm
01-20-2011, 4:34 AM
I guess he finds vague laws to be "valuable" tools for law enforcement. That right there is a warning sign of either severe incompetence or extreme malice. Gotta love the nice slam against the bench, too. I'm sure that makes him friends.

Wow.

NightOwl
01-20-2011, 5:35 AM
KH would do it specifically in an attempt to piss us off. This is why we needed Cooley.

Erik.

I don't understand that. Cooley is just as much anti-gun as Harris, if not more so, so why would he not appeal something that she would?

sd_shooter
01-20-2011, 5:44 AM
KH will be a one term AG

I don't share your optimism. Just look at all the other CA politicians that continue to get elected, eg. Boxer and Feinstein. The state is filled with fruits & nuts, just as they say!

rromeo
01-20-2011, 5:47 AM
If she's one term, hopefully it's not because she has moved up an office.

Glock22Fan
01-20-2011, 6:47 AM
I don't understand that. Cooley is just as much anti-gun as Harris, if not more so, so why would he not appeal something that she would?


Bacause Cooley, anti-gun or not, would have considered the merits of the matter and, whatever his personal feelings, would only have brought a challenge that he might win.

Harris is likely to bring a challenge because she wants to win, rather than because she thinks she might win.

In other words, one would have done it by logic, the other is running on pure emotions.

Milsurps
01-20-2011, 7:10 AM
KH will be a one term AG

I don't share your optimism. Just look at all the other CA politicians that continue to get elected, eg. Boxer and Feinstein. The state is filled with fruits & nuts, just as they say!

I agree... we're just out numbered by them. Shame, beautiful state, $xxxxy politics. :mad:

dfletcher
01-20-2011, 7:28 AM
I don't understand that. Cooley is just as much anti-gun as Harris, if not more so, so why would he not appeal something that she would?

I live in San Francisco, I've met her and asked her a question or two. Saw her "Cow Palace" performance. She believes the 4th Amendment does not apply regarding guns. She not only believes ALL guns should be banned but she believes gun owners are ignorant, loathesome creatures - does that describe Cooley?

BluNorthern
01-20-2011, 7:36 AM
If she's one term, hopefully it's not because she has moved up an office.
This is what scares me. Her and Newsome moving up the political ladder to the top. They'll do it too, the voters in this State are exactly that stupid. Newsome and Harris and their cronies want to turn the whole State into San Francisco and the Bay area.

Jack L
01-20-2011, 7:38 AM
The NRA and CRPA will ***** slap her in court.

NotEnufGarage
01-20-2011, 7:50 AM
If De Leon thinks having to produce ID and give a thumbprint to buy ammo is such a "minor inconvenience", we should all request that he introduce and champion legislation to require the same when voting.

Glock22Fan
01-20-2011, 7:56 AM
If De Leon thinks having to produce ID and give a thumbprint to buy ammo is such a "minor inconvenience", we should all request that he introduce and champion legislation to require the same when voting.

Although providing a thumbprint and ID definitely should not be a legal requirement, that didn't worry me nearly as much as the fact that it limited one to the meagre choice of over-priced ammo available at the local store. Or reloading, which I do do for some calibers, but don't always have time for.

DougJ
01-20-2011, 7:58 AM
I hope she does appeal the decision! That's exactly what we want. If she's stupid enough to try an appeal on this steaming pile of flawed BS called AB 962 I think she'll lose, and she'll lose big. Yes, even in CA. If she want's to appeal, my expectation is that the loss will set precedent that this type of legislation is unconstitutional.

I can't believe the people of this State elected her as our AG, but this could be the silver lining: She's too stupid/ideological to do her job correctly.

domino
01-20-2011, 8:06 AM
I actually got an email yesterday from Assemblymember Hagman in regards to this. Below is his email about it. I like this guy, he is going to try and pass a new bill to repeal 962. His email ..

In 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law AB 962 which would, commencing February 1, 2011, require handgun ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other information from ammunition purchasers. The bill would also provide that the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction, with the deliverer being provided bona fide evidence of identity of the purchaser. This law places hardships on law-abiding citizens, increases small business costs, and creates a database of ammunition purchases that exposes personal information to identity theft and other misuses.



Last session, I introduced AB 1663 which would have repealed AB 962. Unfortunately, due to majority party control, this bill did not pass.



Fortunately, today a Fresno County Superior Court Judge has ruled these rules and restrictions as unconstitutional because the wording of AB 962 proved too vague for accurate interpretation. The full sorry can be read here: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6128



This is a significant victory for California gun owners. However, an appeal is most likely to be filled and we must continue the fight for our Second Amendment rights. That is why I plan on introducing a bill like AB 1663 again this session in case the courts reverse this decision.



An ammunition registry does not prevent crime, it only further restricts the rights of California’s responsible gun owners. Criminals who obtain ammunition illegally will continue to do so and your local businessman would be stuck with the charge of a massive multi-million dollar record keeping system. We need to focus our limited resources on criminals, not our law-abiding citizens and small businesses.



I will not give up the fight to protect our basic rights and I hope you will also continue this cause.



Thank you for your support.



Assemblyman Curt Hagman

District 60

POLICESTATE
01-20-2011, 8:15 AM
Even if KH wants to appeal it will cost money, and I'm sure she's going to have to pick what she wants in her budget very carefully. Even so, I would not be surprised if she appeals.

Bhobbs
01-20-2011, 8:23 AM
How can parts of the law be implemented if the whole law was ruled unConstitutional?

jtmkinsd
01-20-2011, 9:20 AM
How can parts of the law be implemented if the whole law was ruled unConstitutional?

The "whole law" wasn't ruled unconstitutional. The judge ruled the definition of "handgun ammunition" as unconstitutionally vague and ordered the identification requirement not be implemented. While that is really the meat of the law, it wasn't the "whole law".

Much like the judge that ruled the requirement for individuals to purchase healthcare or face a "fine" from the Feds as unconstitutional, but the rest of the healtcare law is still in effect. So now the AG is going to have to appeal that (which they will) or Congress and the insurance industry has to figure out where the money to pay for the bill is going to come from, since the mandate was to offset the costs of covering 30 million people without insurance.

motorhead
01-20-2011, 9:26 AM
well there is that pesky injunction. as i understand it, it bars enforcement of the ENTIRE statute.

Wherryj
01-20-2011, 9:28 AM
KH will be a one term AG

Precisely one term too long in my opinion.

Wherryj
01-20-2011, 9:32 AM
If De Leon thinks having to produce ID and give a thumbprint to buy ammo is such a "minor inconvenience", we should all request that he introduce and champion legislation to require the same when voting.

Nicely done.

Mendo223
01-20-2011, 9:40 AM
amazing how these brain dead liberals keep wasting our taxpayer money to fund their loony anti gun policies..

i did vote for Kamala Harris, for the reason listed above. shes too damn dumb and incompetant to do any serious damage.

Cooley on theother hand is like a new john ashcroft in sheeps clothing. dude is on some police state prosecute everyone for every little crime. and he threatened to repeal medical marijuana laws which i think shows his blatent nanny state mindset. cooley is scarier than KH by far.....Hopefully KHs incompetance will result in her appeal not going anywhere...

sbrady@Michel&Associates
01-20-2011, 10:34 AM
well there is that pesky injunction. as i understand it, it bars enforcement of the ENTIRE statute.

Just to clarify, AB 962 was made up of several statutes. Some relied on the vague definition of "handgun ammunition" while others did not. Those that did are the ones that were declared unconstitutional (which were the main provisions requiring face-to-face transfers and registration of transfers) and are the ones being enjoined. The only remaining portion that I can think of should not concern anyone unless you are a prohibited person.

Wherryj
01-20-2011, 11:22 AM
I guess he finds vague laws to be "valuable" tools for law enforcement. That right there is a warning sign of either severe incompetence or extreme malice. Gotta love the nice slam against the bench, too. I'm sure that makes him friends.

Wow.

""This is deplorable, especially in light of what just took place in Tucson," said De Leon, of Los Angeles. "I'm very disapointed that this judge would, with very little analysis, discard an important statute that is a valuable law enorcement tool just to save ammunition purchasers from a minor inconvenience."

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/19/3336075/calif-judge-handgun-ammo-laws.html#ixzz1BbpVCME1

To me this translates as "This is deplorable, especially in light of what just took place in Tucson," said De Leon of Los Angeles. "I'm very disappointed that this judge would, with very little analysis, discard a poorly written statute that I personally felt was a key law enforcement tool just because the Constitution says it's unjust."

robcoe
01-20-2011, 11:27 AM
She will appeal, she will lose, I will laugh.

CMonfort
01-20-2011, 11:39 AM
Precisely one term too long in my opinion.

it prohibits enforcement of 12060, 12061, and 12318. Those are the statutes everone was concerned with and relied on the definition of handgun ammo.


The provisions regarding the prohibition on the transfer of ammunition (not just handgun ammunition) to PROHIBITED minors, and other prohibited persons will remain in effect. Those provisions contain a mens rea / knowledge requirment of "knows or reasonably should know" that the person is prohibited

Edit: I didn't see my colleague's post above. These posts should clear up any questions.

wash
01-20-2011, 12:13 PM
I think Harris' consideration is mostly political speech.

She'll read the decision, realise that the "solution" is legislative and just give up.

The legislature will be left with the problem of trying to pass a bill that has three lawsuits waiting for it.

The antis might re-introduce it in every session but I doubt it will get traction any time soon.

OleCuss
01-20-2011, 12:29 PM
SBrady and CMonfort:

Thank you very much for clearing things up for me. I really like getting truly expert/knowledgeable information on such things.

Arreaux
01-20-2011, 12:53 PM
This is what scares me. Her and Newsome moving up the political ladder to the top. They'll do it too, the voters in this State are exactly that stupid. Newsome and Harris and their cronies want to turn the whole State into San Francisco and the Bay area.

What terrifies me is if something happens to JB, who's next inline to take over...Newsome?

NightOwl
01-20-2011, 1:08 PM
Bacause Cooley, anti-gun or not, would have considered the merits of the matter and, whatever his personal feelings, would only have brought a challenge that he might win.

Harris is likely to bring a challenge because she wants to win, rather than because she thinks she might win.

In other words, one would have done it by logic, the other is running on pure emotions.

That's why I consider Harris to be a better choice. Let's hope she DOES push things with repeat challanges that have no basis in logic or rational thought as far as the court system will allow. That sort of thing will work in our favor, as she takes indefensible cases and loses them in high courts, thus creating precendent for our cause and knocking the legs out from under hers.

I should write her a letter requesting that she does so, because the evil handgun ammo is scary to me, now that I think about it. Perhaps a thanks for her hard work and tireless efforts too.

m1aowner
01-20-2011, 1:33 PM
Well she is doing the people's business after all.....:rolleyes:

wildhawker
01-20-2011, 1:36 PM
Frankly, while a few things might speed up *somewhat*, the extra work she'll likely incur hurts. Remember that there are only a handful of people in CA working on *all* of the issues concurrently.

-Brandon

That's why I consider Harris to be a better choice. Let's hope she DOES push things with repeat challanges that have no basis in logic or rational thought as far as the court system will allow. That sort of thing will work in our favor, as she takes indefensible cases and loses them in high courts, thus creating precendent for our cause and knocking the legs out from under hers.

I should write her a letter requesting that she does so, because the evil handgun ammo is scary to me, now that I think about it. Perhaps a thanks for her hard work and tireless efforts too.

Glock22Fan
01-20-2011, 1:45 PM
That's why I consider Harris to be a better choice. Let's hope she DOES push things with repeat challanges that have no basis in logic or rational thought as far as the court system will allow. That sort of thing will work in our favor, as she takes indefensible cases and loses them in high courts, thus creating precendent for our cause and knocking the legs out from under hers.

I should write her a letter requesting that she does so, because the evil handgun ammo is scary to me, now that I think about it. Perhaps a thanks for her hard work and tireless efforts too.


I don't understand this.

We've won this case already. You want to spend more money hoping that you will win it again?

Isn't it better that she saves our money by not trying to fight us? Doesn't winning the case (any case) first time around set precedents for us?

And don't think that her losing unwinnable cases (and judges can sometimes flip unbeatable cases right over) will hurt her reputation. Au contraire, the sheep will love that she even tries to fight the evil NRA axis.

jdberger
01-20-2011, 2:10 PM
I don't understand this.

We've won this case already. You want to spend more money hoping that you will win it again?

Isn't it better that she saves our money by not trying to fight us? Doesn't winning the case (any case) first time around set precedents for us?

And don't think that her losing unwinnable cases (and judges can sometimes flip unbeatable cases right over) will hurt her reputation. Au contraire, the sheep will love that she even tries to fight the evil NRA axis.

There's some merit to showing that she (the DA) is continually tilting at windmills - expecially if the State is in a budget crisis. If it can be illustrated to voters that the only guaranteed outcome of certain gun control proposals is endless and costly litigation, they'll start to oppose them.

If it can be demonstrated to politicians that the only guaranteed outcome of certain gun control proposals is endless and costly litigation, they'll start to oppose them (with a few "dead-ender" exceptions).

With respect to the "evil NRA" - it's our job as members to recruit more members and make our affiliation known. It's hard to view an organization as "evil" when 4 of your neighbors and half your family are members.

Same goes for CRPA.

chris
01-20-2011, 2:20 PM
Deleon is such a scum bag. he does'nt even realize that a law that he wrote is un-Constitutional is still disappointed that a judge followed the law of the land and Deleon did not.


This is deplorable, especially in light of what just took place in Tucson," said De Leon, of Los Angeles. "I'm very disapointed that this judge would, with very little analysis, discard an important statute that is a valuable law enorcement tool just to save ammunition purchasers from a minor inconvenience."



we can bet that he will introduce this again.

Mikeb
01-20-2011, 2:22 PM
I knew that decision would get her knicker in a knot.
I hope she learns a lot at her new job.
Mike

Gray Peterson
01-20-2011, 2:28 PM
There's some merit to showing that she (the DA) is continually tilting at windmills - expecially if the State is in a budget crisis.
.

I wonder if she's going to surprise us.

WWDHD?
01-20-2011, 2:29 PM
Anyone ready for Newsom/Harris 2016?
Where are you going to move to then?

chris
01-20-2011, 2:35 PM
Anyone ready for Newsom/Harris 2016?
Where are you going to move to then?

the same voters that voted for Jerry Brown.

Glock22Fan
01-20-2011, 2:35 PM
Anyone ready for Newsom/Harris 2016?
Where are you going to move to then?


Wwll, if the trends are still going the same way that they did in 2010, California won't have to secede from the Union after that: they will boot us out.

calnurse
01-20-2011, 3:07 PM
Kamala and De Leon are vague themselves!!!! They should be banned from serving the public!!

jamesob
01-20-2011, 3:47 PM
What terrifies me is if something happens to JB, who's next inline to take over...Newsome?

here is whats more terrifying, jerry does 2 terms then newsome getting elected for 2 terms.:eek:

Jack L
01-20-2011, 5:34 PM
here is whats more terrifying, jerry does 2 terms then newsome getting elected for 2 terms.:eek:

SF is hip to Newsome and his constant hair combing while he duped the city into a budget crisis. They may spread the word. He also laid his friends wife. He may self destruct before he gets the chance to climb the ladder very high.

Katana
01-20-2011, 5:42 PM
Kamala and De Leon are vague themselves!!!! They should be banned from serving the public!!

...or, they should have to show their ID and give a thumbprint every time they open their mouths. :D

vintagearms
01-20-2011, 6:11 PM
Kamala and De Leon are vague themselves!!!! They should be banned from serving the public!!

There are WAY too many asshats living here that will vote for those two. Oh, what am I saying Boxer as well. :confused:

Quser.619
01-20-2011, 6:40 PM
SF is hip to Newsome and his constant hair combing while he duped the city into a budget crisis. They may spread the word. He also laid his friends wife. He may self destruct before he gets the chance to climb the ladder very high.

This also describes the CA Democratic Party's handling of the economy

Skidmark
01-20-2011, 8:32 PM
I think Harris' consideration is mostly political speech.

She'll read the decision, realise that the "solution" is legislative and just give up.

The legislature will be left with the problem of trying to pass a bill that has three lawsuits waiting for it.

The antis might re-introduce it in every session but I doubt it will get traction any time soon.

^^^ This.

She's nutty, but not so nutty to tilt at this particular windmill.

N6ATF
01-20-2011, 9:15 PM
Deleon is such a scum bag. he does'nt even realize that a law that he wrote is un-Constitutional is still disappointed that a judge followed the law of the land and Deleon did not.

He is only interested in writing unconstitutional laws to protect criminals. He's disappointed in the judge because state court judges have consistently approved of every unconstitutional victim disarmament law the legislature comes up with. Not anymore!

Well she is doing the people's business after all.....:rolleyes:

The only people that matter to them are criminals. The rest of us can FOAD.

Deamer
01-20-2011, 9:36 PM
we can bet that he will introduce this again.

And you can bet he will do his homework and research every pistol ever built and add those calibers to the list. That way he can't be vague. He is probably thinking " I'll show you evil gun owners"

Wrangler John
01-21-2011, 1:01 AM
the same voters that voted for Jerry Brown.

I wouldn't have voted for Jerry brown had Meg Whitman not run on the other side. Meg was just such a phony turn-off that it had to be Jerry.

OleCuss
01-21-2011, 3:52 AM
SF is hip to Newsome and his constant hair combing while he duped the city into a budget crisis. They may spread the word. He also laid his friends wife. He may self destruct before he gets the chance to climb the ladder very high.

You do have a point, but Newsom pushed homosexual marriage early on. That means that within the hard-core Democrat base he pretty much can do no wrong. Net effect is that if he doesn't step on it pretty badly in the current office he has a good shot at making it through the primaries and then a decent shot at being elected.

socal2310
01-21-2011, 7:15 AM
SF is hip to Newsome and his constant hair combing while he duped the city into a budget crisis. They may spread the word. He also laid his friends wife. He may self destruct before he gets the chance to climb the ladder very high.

What would it take for him to self destruct? The guy is made of Kevlar and Teflon. Anyone else would have seen their political career self-destruct, it only cost him the Democratic nomination for Governor and he's still young enough to keep trying for years.

Ryan

Wherryj
01-21-2011, 7:29 AM
SF is hip to Newsome and his constant hair combing while he duped the city into a budget crisis. They may spread the word. He also laid his friends wife. He may self destruct before he gets the chance to climb the ladder very high.

It would appear that SF was also "hip" to Kamala Harris, yet here we are...

BluNorthern
01-21-2011, 7:41 AM
I was going to say that a LOT of California voters, especially the big city ones, seem to feel pretty and celebrity is more important than common sense and effectiveness. But they couldn't be as shallow as that, could they? Harris and especially Newsome have the left locked up solid. Social programs, marijuana laws, gay activism, Newsome hasn't met a left 'ticket item' that he didn't get behind. He wants to turn this State into a San Francisco, and apparently the majority of voters in this State share his vision.

badmonkey
01-21-2011, 8:13 AM
I'll tell you this much--if the CA GOP can't come up with candidates that are more compelling or more genuine than Whitman or Fiorina then of course Newsome, Boxer, Harris, etc are going to win office.

Moderates/Conservatives/Libertarians' best hope is that with the new primary system, somehow a moderate democrat faces up against the 3 horsemen and wins.

As far as brown is concerned, I haven't heard much from him to sour me on his 3 week performance. Seems like everything he's been talking about has been realistic if not downright reasonable.

motorhead
01-21-2011, 11:00 AM
I'll tell you this much--if the CA GOP can't come up with candidates that are more compelling or more genuine than Whitman or Fiorina then of course Newsome, Boxer, Harris, etc are going to win office.

Moderates/Conservatives/Libertarians' best hope is that with the new primary system, somehow a moderate democrat faces up against the 3 horsemen and wins.

As far as brown is concerned, I haven't heard much from him to sour me on his 3 week performance. Seems like everything he's been talking about has been realistic if not downright reasonable.

i concur. WTF are they thinking. we truly shot ourselves in the foot. kinda like running mc cain for president.

Jack L
01-21-2011, 11:47 AM
I'll tell you this much--if the CA GOP can't come up with candidates that are more compelling or more genuine than Whitman or Fiorina then of course Newsome, Boxer, Harris, etc are going to win office.

Moderates/Conservatives/Libertarians' best hope is that with the new primary system, somehow a moderate democrat faces up against the 3 horsemen and wins.

As far as brown is concerned, I haven't heard much from him to sour me on his 3 week performance. Seems like everything he's been talking about has been realistic if not downright reasonable.


Brown has to chop, chop, chop and more chop. I hope he is able to massacre the hundreds of social services and pensions. These next few months will be interesting. I'm waiting for the feds to make it mandatory to chop across the board for national security interests. If CA goes under, the whole USA will tilt so far over that other states will follow and China and others will freak causing a global financial meltdown. It that's serious, if Governors don't get it on ASAP.

wash
01-21-2011, 12:37 PM
With a Democrat at the helm I believe there is the real possibility of a federal bailout for CA.

That might buy enough time to get the budget sorted out without pissing off too many people.

I agree that the Republican party has to take most of the blame in the election for putting up a RINO like Meg and letting Fiorina screw up so badly at the end of her campaign.

The only good to come out of it is that Meg proved some ellections can not be bought. Hopefully that will scare the crap out of the next Bloomberg out there.