PDA

View Full Version : Heller and the Cal AWB


Tiberius
10-14-2013, 8:53 AM
This is probably a dumb question, and I admit I'm not up to speed on all the litigation. But a post on another thread raised this in my mind.

Is the current California AWB (which prompts bullet buttons and such) being challenged under the individual right interpretation of the 2A? That came down after the Cal ban, and would seem to invalidate it, since the Cal ban is aimed at rilfes/features "in common use." I'm sure someone is doing this - can anyone point me to the case?

sholling
10-14-2013, 9:02 AM
Heller II was a challenge to Washinton DC's AWB and was a loss for us. What we learned from Heller II was that judges will continue to ignore Heller and marginalize the 2nd Amendment rights of US citizens and will use any excuse that they can think up to keep us disarmed. In this case the 2nd Amendment and the "common use" test found in Heller was trumped by unsubstantiated testimony "showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime.”

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/10/appeals-court-rules-against-dc-gun-owners-in-heller-ii/#axzz2hiUH6atN

dave86
10-14-2013, 1:23 PM
Richards V Harris

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Richards_v._Harris

LoneYote
10-14-2013, 1:55 PM
Richards V Harris

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Richards_v._Harris

If someone knows how might want to edit the status area of the link...
Latest case management set for Sept 6, 2013
Amended complaint filed November 1, 2102
Haynie and Richards were consolidated, case is under "Haynie"

I know the courts move slow but 2102 is a long time away...

hardlyworking
10-14-2013, 2:17 PM
Read the Wiki, read the amended complaint. I realize I am totally arm-chairing this opinion as IANAL, and I've only been reading cases as they pop up on Calguns for the past year or so, but I'mma open my big yap anyway:

Richards v. Harris, IMO does not argue a 2A infringement very well. There is no mention of recent case law, no pointers to Heller or Macdonald, no quotes from Scalia or Thomas. It sort of waves the names of a few rifles around and goes "see? they are common"

It spends a lot of time going over ambiguity, and intentional deception/obfuscation by DOJ. The historical and evidential exhibits here are outstanding. BUT then there's the lack of supporting casework as to why this is bad, WHY is it unconstitutional. Federally? Does Federal unconstitutionality via ambiguity apply to a CA law? Where's the controlling opinion on that. If not Federal, which CA or 9CA law or casework is controlling for a CA-only ambiguity-constitutionality claim?

I would love to know why I'm wrong so people who are lawyers or law-schoolers please let me know!

kf6tac
10-14-2013, 2:34 PM
Read the Wiki, read the amended complaint. I realize I am totally arm-chairing this opinion as IANAL, and I've only been reading cases as they pop up on Calguns for the past year or so, but I'mma open my big yap anyway:

Richards v. Harris, IMO does not argue a 2A infringement very well. There is no mention of recent case law, no pointers to Heller or Macdonald, no quotes from Scalia or Thomas. It sort of waves the names of a few rifles around and goes "see? they are common"

It spends a lot of time going over ambiguity, and intentional deception/obfuscation by DOJ. The historical and evidential exhibits here are outstanding. BUT then there's the lack of supporting casework as to why this is bad, WHY is it unconstitutional. Federally? Does Federal unconstitutionality via ambiguity apply to a CA law? Where's the controlling opinion on that. If not Federal, which CA or 9CA law or casework is controlling for a CA-only ambiguity-constitutionality claim?

I would love to know why I'm wrong so people who are lawyers or law-schoolers please let me know!

It's because it's only a complaint. Generally speaking, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need only contain sufficient allegations to give notice to the defendant of what claims the plaintiff is making and the general facts that gave rise to the claim. A complaint does not need to cite any law.

hardlyworking
10-16-2013, 8:57 AM
It's because it's only a complaint. Generally speaking, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need only contain sufficient allegations to give notice to the defendant of what claims the plaintiff is making and the general facts that gave rise to the claim. A complaint does not need to cite any law.

Groovy, thank you!