PDA

View Full Version : Question on Harrott Decision


Ryan HBC
04-02-2007, 11:07 PM
I've been reading the Harrott case a bit, and need some help understanding.

http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/opinions/jun/s055064.shtml

I understand that it lead to requiring all AR / AK rifles to be specifically listed by make and model, but was Harrott's AK listed? It seems like they found it to be a named assault weapon in trial court and the supreme court affirmed. Is this the case?

If so, what was the point of him arguing the list was too vague?

hoffmang
04-02-2007, 11:28 PM
The trial court found that it was a "series" weapon and deemed themselves and the sheriff able to determine series membership.

CA Supreme Court said that that test would be unconstitutionally vague. As such, the definitive list of what is or is not a Roberti-Roos weapon is found on the list in the CCR. Harrott's AK wasn't on the list and therefor he got to take possession of the AK. That generalized the rule that all one had to do is see if a gun is on the list, and if it isn't - all it has to do is still comply with the features limitations and you were safe and legal.

-Gene

fun2none
04-02-2007, 11:29 PM
You read the dissenting opinion by justice C.J. George. The majority of the justices concluded that

that a trial court may not find a firearm a series assault weapon unless it has been first identified as such in the list published by the Attorney General in the California Code of Regulations

bwiese
04-02-2007, 11:32 PM
I've been reading the Harrott case a bit, and need some help understanding.

http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/opinions/jun/s055064.shtml

I understand that it lead to requiring all AR / AK rifles to be specifically listed by make and model, but was Harrott's AK listed? It seems like they found it to be a named assault weapon in trial court and the supreme court affirmed. Is this the case?


I believe the case was handed back down to in fact find if the weapon in question was indeed an "AK47":

Our conclusion that the trial court exceeded its authority in declaring Mr. Harrott’s rifle an AK series
weapon under section 12276, subdivisions (a)(1)(A) and (e) does not end the matter. As stated in footnote
2, ante, the Attorney General now asserts the rifle is an AK47, one of the assault weapons specifically listed
in section 12276, subdivision (a)(1)(A), and in his petition for writ of mandate, Mr. Harrott did describe the
rifle as an “AK-47 2822.”

Therefore, the case should be remanded to the trial court for a resolution of this question.


I have no idea of the outcome of this. As many of us know, there are very few real AK47s, as they became AKMs and AKSes and were full auto - and few semiauto firearms actually used a trade name model marking of "AK47".

Mr Harrott may well have just been referring to the rifle in a colloquial sense, esp as this case originated back in the early/mid-90s, before the Kasler decision, and since since every store in CA had "AK pattern" rifles up til SB23 kicked in 2000.

Ryan HBC
04-03-2007, 7:22 AM
I believe the case was handed back down to in fact find if the weapon in question was indeed an "AK47":


\Harrott's AK wasn't on the list and therefor he got to take possession of the AK.

-Gene

Ok, now I am confused even more. =/

I am trying to explain this to someone out of state, who read the case and is asking the same questions I am. If the rifle was listed, why did he use the "vague listing" defense to begin with?

luvtolean
04-03-2007, 7:50 AM
If the rifle was listed, why did he use the "vague listing" defense to begin with?

As Gene's post says, it had nothing to do with Kasler listed rifles. It had to do with the verbage in the law attempting to describe clones that did not exist (or they missed) when the Kasler list was generated.

The Supreme Court determined if not on the list, it was legal.

fun2none
04-03-2007, 9:40 AM
The Harrott ruling essentially invalidated the concept of AR-15 & AK47 Series.

The courts, and Law Enforcement, cannot be expected to have the expertise to determine if a specific rifle is part of a Series. After the Kasler ruling, the DOJ guidelines to LEO were (and still are to some degree) if it looks like an AR15, it is an AR15.

It is analogous to a law that bans all "Shelby AC Cobra Series" sports cars. Does the ban apply to Cobras only made by Shelby, or does it cover all the clones and replicas ? If the "Series" moniker is too vague then how exactly does one determine if a car is part of a series ? You list them in the "Sports Car Identification Guide" by make and model. That what Harrot ruling said about AR15 and AKs.

hoffmang
04-03-2007, 2:14 PM
Using the car analogy, I think the better analogy to "series" membership would be if CA banned all jeeps.

Does that include the Jeep CJ-7? A Land Rover? A USGI Jeep made by Willy's? Ford?

The bottom line of the ruling was that the only way Roberti-Roos could survive Constitutional scrutiny was to limit the definition of series membership to those firearms listed by Make and Model on the list promulgated by the CA Attorney General.

-Gene