PDA

View Full Version : Could CA BOF shut down ranges if illegally config OLL's are there?


Steyr_223
08-08-2007, 10:55 PM
This is a follow-up to another thread in the rifle forum.

If someone is arrested for having an unregistered AW or an illegally configured OLL on a private or public range, does the state have grounds to close the range? Could the owners of a private range be held accountable and be shut down?

Jicko
08-08-2007, 10:56 PM
Not likely.

hoffmang
08-08-2007, 10:59 PM
It would be a very hard legal theory for BoF to prove.

Fear of the BoF is over done. They have so badly mis-stepped on so many things that they have lost the ability to be very effective. Hopefully more of the personnel that have caused that damage will be less of a factor over coming months.

-Gene

-aK-
08-08-2007, 11:02 PM
On what grounds?

PIRATE14
08-08-2007, 11:03 PM
Well....no known public entitiy could be a safe haven for illegal activity or allow known illegal activity to take place on the business premises......

However, they'd have to prove this but that might not stop them from trying............

WokMaster1
08-08-2007, 11:05 PM
it's like shutting down San Francisco because the mayor was caught boning his best friend's wife.......I know! I know! Doesn't make any sense..:D

dfletcher
08-08-2007, 11:17 PM
it's like shutting down San Francisco because the mayor was caught boning his best friend's wife.......I know! I know! Doesn't make any sense..:D

It's OK - I heard he did that only because she "wouldn't inhale".:eek:

C.G.
08-09-2007, 12:16 AM
It's OK - I heard he did that only because she "wouldn't inhale".:eek:

You got it wrong, he didn't inhale and oral sex doesn't count.

crunchy2k
08-09-2007, 12:43 AM
it's like shutting down San Francisco because the mayor was caught boning his best friend's wife.......I know! I know! Doesn't make any sense..:D

You raise a good discussion. I believe a major can be attacked for not upholding the laws of his city...Just as a police officer can be attacked for not enforcing California law. The 'Newsom' illegally told his recorder to grant marriage lic. to same sex individuals against California law. His right to a pension could be attacked. His lic. to practice law could be attacked for the same faux paux.

It just takes a a lot of discussion here and sorting out the appropiate law.

bear308
08-09-2007, 12:44 AM
This is a follow-up to another thread in the rifle forum.

If someone is arrested for having an unregistered AW or an illegally configured OLL on a private or public range, does the state have grounds to close the range? Could the owners of a private range be held accountable and be shut down?

I don't know about grounds, but they didn't do it to us. However, some folks round here have kinda riled em up since them. Myself included:43:

CSACANNONEER
08-09-2007, 6:49 AM
Do gas stations or private parking lots get shut down if a vechicle is found there that has bad brakes or a cracked windshield?

Fate
08-09-2007, 9:45 AM
Are you positive his "best friend's wife" is actually FEMALE? :)

SemiAutoSam
08-09-2007, 9:51 AM
Too true his best friends wife could have been one of those HE/SHE's.

Looks like a female from all outward appearances (TO: Those that need glasses) but has male hardware!

Are you positive his "best friend's wife" is actually FEMALE? :)

simonov
08-09-2007, 9:56 AM
You guys are trying to apply, in an outwardly reasonable manner, a limited understanding of the law to a hypothetical situation. Most of us are old enough to understand that what you or I think is a reasonable application of the law as we understand it doesn't really count for much in the real world.

Governments will do whatever they want to do. Bringing suit against a range for whatever reason doesn't cost them anything except legal fees (and there's plenty more where that came from). Do you think it's reasonable that governments sue gun dealers and manufacturers for the criminal or negligent misuses of guns? No judge in the country has thought so, but that didn't stop them from bringing suit after suit until the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and the new law still hasn't stopped them.

All a government has to do is bring a suit that costs so much for a range to defend that it closes up.

Things are getting weird out there. The DA in Houston is thinking of bringing homicide charges against the dude who was leading cops on a car chase where two TV helicopters crashed. That doesn't make any sense at all, except in the Bizarro World of vindictive law.

WolfMansDad
08-09-2007, 10:04 AM
Internet service providers typically aren't held liable for what their subscribers post, and banks aren't held liable for what people put in their safe deposit boxes. (That's the reason they don't ask you what you put in there, not to preserve your privacy but to protect their legal butts.) By the same token, I would expect ranges to not be held accountable for what private citizens bring to them.

Steyr_223
08-09-2007, 10:33 AM
Thanks for the responses.

I wanted to show our friend tteng, that his premise of LEOs shutting down ranges for firearms violation by shooters is not plausible.

hoffmang
08-09-2007, 10:49 AM
Sim,

But not all costs are monetary. The political cost - even here - of engaging the NRA in a head on battle - and that's what a move like that would create - would be very high.

-Gene

simonov
08-09-2007, 10:50 AM
I wanted to show our friend tteng, that his premise of LEOs shutting down ranges for firearms violation by shooters is not plausible.

Then you have failed.

Internet service providers typically aren't held liable for what their subscribers post, and banks aren't held liable for what people put in their safe deposit boxes. (That's the reason they don't ask you what you put in there, not to preserve your privacy but to protect their legal butts.) By the same token, I would expect ranges to not be held accountable for what private citizens bring to them.

Car dealers and manufacturers are not responsible when their customers get drunk and kill people with their cars. But you cannot apply that standard to gun dealers, can you? Gun dealers and manufacturers have been sued repeatedly in almost exactly the same situation.

Again, these analogies don't work. Only gun politics is like gun politics. And this is essentially a political, not a legal, question.

bear308
08-09-2007, 10:58 AM
You guys are trying to apply, in an outwardly reasonable manner, a limited understanding of the law to a hypothetical situation. Most of us are old enough to understand that what you or I think is a reasonable application of the law as we understand it doesn't really count for much in the real world.

Governments will do whatever they want to do. Bringing suit against a range for whatever reason doesn't cost them anything except legal fees (and there's plenty more where that came from). Do you think it's reasonable that governments sue gun dealers and manufacturers for the criminal or negligent misuses of guns? No judge in the country has thought so, but that didn't stop them from bringing suit after suit until the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and the new law still hasn't stopped them.

All a government has to do is bring a suit that costs so much for a range to defend that it closes up.

Things are getting weird out there. The DA in Houston is thinking of bringing homicide charges against the dude who was leading cops on a car chase where two TV helicopters crashed. That doesn't make any sense at all, except in the Bizarro World of vindictive law.
That maybe true, but IT HAPPENED at my range. We're still here. Anything is possible, however it did NOT happen in our circumstance.

WolfMansDad
08-09-2007, 11:01 AM
Again, these analogies don't work. Only gun politics is like gun politics. And this is essentially a political, not a legal, question.

As much as the anti-gunners may wish otherwise, that isn't the way U.S. law works. The law, as written, has the final say, over and above the political wishes of the people in government. This is one of the things that keeps dictators from arising here, and it allows us to settle grave differences (the McCarthy hearings, the off-list-rifle movement, etc.) without violence.

Essentially all of U.S. law revolves around the idea that the law itself is more powerful than the people in government. Even if none of the people who wrote or enforce the law like the idea that bullet-button mag releases are legal, they are still legal. Bad people may TRY to achieve their ends by political means, but at the end of the day they must submit to the law. If the law protects ISPs and banks, it must in the same spirit protect ranges.

JALLEN
08-09-2007, 11:24 AM
You guys are trying to apply, in an outwardly reasonable manner, a limited understanding of the law to a hypothetical situation. Most of us are old enough to understand that what you or I think is a reasonable application of the law as we understand it doesn't really count for much in the real world.

Governments will do whatever they want to do. Bringing suit against a range for whatever reason doesn't cost them anything except legal fees (and there's plenty more where that came from). Do you think it's reasonable that governments sue gun dealers and manufacturers for the criminal or negligent misuses of guns? No judge in the country has thought so, but that didn't stop them from bringing suit after suit until the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and the new law still hasn't stopped them.

All a government has to do is bring a suit that costs so much for a range to defend that it closes up.

Things are getting weird out there. The DA in Houston is thinking of bringing homicide charges against the dude who was leading cops on a car chase where two TV helicopters crashed. That doesn't make any sense at all, except in the Bizarro World of vindictive law.

That will give a hell of an alibi to the driver who was in Phoenix at the time, or presumedly was. I say that since the helo's crashed in a park in downtown Phoenix.

Phoenix is a lot like Houston only not as humid in the summer. There are far fewer hurricanes in Phoenix, too, come to think about it.

WolfMansDad
08-10-2007, 11:17 AM
Totally agree in principle, WMD.

I think siminov agrees in principle also.

What I think sim is saying is that in spite of this principle, the government's ability and willingness to financially destroy political opponents in the private sector is substantial and being employed with frequency these days, regardless of whether they ultimately prevail in each individual case.

Yes, and that is why we fight. Our struggle is not just about whether we can own guns or not, or even what guns we are allowed to have. It is much bigger than that. When we fight for RKBA, we are also fighting for the rule of law, as opposed to the tyranny of men. Our court battles ultimately frustrate the designs of would-be dictators and totalitarian regimes while they are nascent, before they acquire enough power to be truly dangerous. People will try to set up dictatorships, even in America, but we have the legal mechanisms to oppose them.

Much more is at stake here than just what kind of rifles we can own.

Steyr_223
08-10-2007, 12:17 PM
"Much more is at stake here than just what kind of rifles we can own."

Amen brother..