PDA

View Full Version : SFVPOA v SF (2A Protections for 10+Round Magazines)


fizux
11-19-2013, 10:27 AM
San Francisco Veteran Police Officers' Association v. San Francisco

Issue: NRA sponsored challenge to San Francisco's 2013 ban on possession of lawfully acquired standard capacity magazines.

Current Status as of 2/13/2013: Prelim. Inj. hx on 2/11/2014 is taken under submission; CMC 2/19/2014. Discovery: 5/16/2014, Motions: 5/29/2014, Pretrial: 7/9/2014, Bench trial: 7/14/2014.

1/22/2014 - Prelim. Inj. hx set for 10:00 AM on 2/11/2014 in Ctrm. 8, 19th Flr., 450GG, San Francisco
11/22/2013 - Case reassigned to Judge William Alsup.
11/19/2013 - ADR order; CMC set for 2/19/2014.
11/19/2013 - Complaint (http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Complaint__.pdf).


Trail Court: N.D. Cal.
Case No.: 3:13-cv-05351-WHA
Docket: http://ia601005.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cand.272152/gov.uscourts.cand.272152.docket.html

Other links:
CGN discussion thread in Cal. 2A Activism

cire raeb
11-19-2013, 10:34 AM
Just move the stuff out of the city until this blows over. If I live there I will just ignore the law.

fizux
11-19-2013, 11:30 AM
Just move the stuff out of the city until this blows over. If I live there I will just ignore the law.
If only it weren't illegal for SF residents to lend LCMs to friends for storage outside of SF until the lawsuit blows over...

chainsaw
11-19-2013, 11:36 AM
Last night on KQED news, the talked about the two lawsuits (the one already filed against SF, and the one about to be filed against Sunnyvale, once the election is certified).

They had a short interview with Chuck. Someone should put up a transcript of that interview, because it contains some interesting statements about the Heller-style right to self defense, and availability of high-capacity magazines. I don't want to type that in from memory, because it should be accurate.

taperxz
11-19-2013, 11:59 AM
Looking forward to San Francisco doing the usual payout to the NRA.

mshill
11-19-2013, 12:05 PM
If SF and Sunnyvale were smart they would dump the new laws and not fight this. If they lose it will have huge implications not only statewide but nationally. I don't believe that they will be properly prepared to win in federal court. It seems at the very least they will lose on the basis of state pre-emption but the law suit is on the basis of the 2A.

Who knows, in the future we may be thanking the idiots in SF for defeating the state magazine limit ban and preventing any future national magazine limit ban.

stix213
11-19-2013, 1:29 PM
If only it weren't illegal for SF residents to lend LCMs to friends for storage outside of SF until the lawsuit blows over...

I'd take a small locked case, stuff them in there, sign a rental agreement with said friend for $1 to rent a small area in their closet, then place my mags into my newly rented space.

CMonfort
11-19-2013, 1:40 PM
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/11/california-lawsuit-filed-against-san-francisco-ban-on-possession-of-standard-capacity-firearm-magazines.aspx

California: Lawsuit Filed Against San Francisco Ban on Possession of Standard Capacity Firearm Magazines

Today, the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association (SFPOA) has filed a lawsuit (http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Complaint__.pdf), supported by the National Rifle Association, in federal court challenging San Francisco’s recent ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The Second Amendment-based legal challenge is part of a campaign of nationwide litigation filed and supported by a variety of law enforcement officers and associations to confirm that the Second Amendment protects these common standard-capacity magazines for self-defense and sport shooting.

Today, standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are commonly possessed by millions of law-abiding citizens for a variety of lawful purposes in the United States. These purposes include target practice, shooting competitions, hunting, and, most importantly, self-defense. The Supreme Court has affirmed that self-defense is the “central component” of the Second Amendment.

The San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association represents the retired officers from the San Francisco Police Department. SFPOA is joined in this lawsuit by several individual San Francisco residents who wish to possess these magazines for self-defense or sporting purposes.

The majority of law enforcement in the United States acknowledges that banning standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds will not increase public safety. There is now a growing trend of law enforcement organizations actively opposing and challenging these measures in court. In Colorado, a broad coalition of law enforcement officials filed suit against that state’s recently-enacted ban on common magazines. Earlier this year in New York, the State Sheriffs Association, the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund and individual law enforcement officers filed an amicus brief (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/NY-v.-Cuomo_Conformed-Amici-Curiae-Brief-of-New-York-State-Sheriffs-Association-et-al..pdf) in support of a challenge to the State’s ban on common rifles and magazines. And in Connecticut, a coalition of individual law enforcement officers and the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund filed another legal brief in support of pending challenge to similar laws.

The San Francisco ordinance essentially allows confiscation of any prohibited magazines and, because of state laws restricting their transfer, they cannot be replaced. San Francisco’s ordinance is set to take effect on December 8, 2013. Residents, including retired police officers, will then have until March 8, 2014 to turn their lawfully-possessed magazines over to the police, remove them from the City in the few cases where it might be legal, or transfer them to a licensed firearms dealer.

The lawyers at Michel & Associates representing the plaintiffs will seek an injunction to prevent San Francisco from enforcing this law. Plaintiffs are prepared to appeal this case as high as necessary to have the City’s misguided ordinance declared unconstitutional. This Second Amendment issue may ultimately be addressed by the United States Supreme Court.

Firearms equipped with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds have been around for nearly two centuries. Although the San Francisco ordinance incorrectly describes the banned magazines as “large-capacity,” the truth is that magazines with capacities of more than ten rounds are standard for many common handguns and long guns and have been for hundreds of years. Millions of firearms that have been sold in the United States come from the manufacturer with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

As most gun owners already know, standard-capacity magazines hold the number of cartridges the firearm was designed to operate with. Reduced-capacity magazines are those whose capacity is artificially limited from an original design. By allowing residents and visitors to San Francisco to only possess reduced-capacity magazines, San Francisco has arbitrarily limited the number of rounds that its law-abiding residents have to protect themselves and their loved ones. Hunters and sport shooters traveling through San Francisco with these magazines also can be prosecuted, even if they are unaware of this law.

The City’s decision to arbitrarily limit its residents to magazines holding a maximum of ten rounds endangers the public by giving violent criminals an advantage and decreasing the likelihood that a victim will survive a criminal attack. Of course, criminals who wish to carry out violent attacks will not be thwarted by the City’s restriction. Criminals will simply continue to do what they have always done – buy and possess magazines on the black market or carry multiple firearms to complete their violent crimes.

A ballot measure enacting a similar ordinance was recently passed in Sunnyvale, California. Litigation supported by the NRA is already in the works to challenge that law when the Sunnyvale City Council certifies the vote and the measure then formally becomes law.

To assist in the fight against these attacks on gun owners’ rights in California, please donate to the NRA Legal Action Project today (https://www.nrailadonate.org/forms/default.asp?campaignid=2013LegalAction). For a summary of the many actions the NRA’s legal team at Michel & Associates has taken on behalf of California gun owners, click here (http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/NRA-CA-Accomplishments1.pdf).

TheBest
11-19-2013, 4:24 PM
Last night on KQED news, the talked about the two lawsuits (the one already filed against SF, and the one about to be filed against Sunnyvale, once the election is certified).

They had a short interview with Chuck. Someone should put up a transcript of that interview, because it contains some interesting statements about the Heller-style right to self defense, and availability of high-capacity magazines. I don't want to type that in from memory, because it should be accurate.
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/11/12/sunnyvale-mayor-tom-spitaleri-measure-c-gun-control?__utma=34673459.305048301.1384907017.13849 07017.1384907037.1&__utmb=34673459.7.10.1384907017&__utmc=34673459&__utmx=-&__utmz=34673459.1384907017.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utm ccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=182110629

CMonfort
11-19-2013, 6:16 PM
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/11/california-lawsuit-filed-against-san-francisco-ban-on-possession-of-standard-capacity-firearm-magazines.aspx

Official case thread here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=854136

GoatLovin
11-19-2013, 6:21 PM
Fingers and toes crossed.

anthonyca
11-19-2013, 6:21 PM
Thank you.

zimmj
11-19-2013, 6:26 PM
Lets hope we get a ruling in our favor.

bohoki
11-19-2013, 6:32 PM
i originally thought this was just low hanging fruit using the state preemption but realized it will help with the misinformed about the large capacity nuisance text in the law

pistol3
11-19-2013, 6:42 PM
Is this just about illegal taking of pre-ban magazines or would winning this case also strike down the state law as well?

hornswaggled
11-19-2013, 6:57 PM
GOOD.

OleCuss
11-19-2013, 7:03 PM
I'm eager to see where this goes. I'm sure I will be frustrated by the pace, but that is to be expected with our court system.

bwiese
11-19-2013, 7:26 PM
Wheeeee!

It will be nice for SF to write NRA more checks.

SanPedroShooter
11-19-2013, 7:30 PM
Warm up that check writing pen.

I hope.

Ronin2
11-19-2013, 7:41 PM
After reading the news of this litigation, I just made a $150 donation to the NRA-ILA Legal Action Project (proof of donation in link below). I Challenge everyone else, especially all the non NRA members who erroneously claim the NRA has done nothing in California, to meet or exceed my donation. Those of you who are not NRA members and do not donate SOMETHING.... SHAME ON ALL YOU HYPOCRITES!!!!

https://www.nrailadonate.org/forms/thankyou.asp?form=4&CampaignID=2013LegalAction


Here is the link to the NRA-ILA Legal Action Project donation page for those willing to step up and put their money where their keyboards are:

https://www.nrailadonate.org/forms/default.asp?campaignid=2013LegalAction

POLICESTATE
11-19-2013, 7:48 PM
Just move the stuff out of the city until this blows over. If I live there I will just ignore the law.


Like a BOSS!

http://barackobamasuperstore.com/images/obamaproduct15-portrait1.jpg

POLICESTATE
11-19-2013, 7:50 PM
If SF and Sunnyvale were smart they would dump the new laws and not fight this. If they lose it will have huge implications not only statewide but nationally. I don't believe that they will be properly prepared to win in federal court. It seems at the very least they will lose on the basis of state pre-emption but the law suit is on the basis of the 2A.

Who knows, in the future we may be thanking the idiots in SF for defeating the state magazine limit ban and preventing any future national magazine limit ban.

That won't happen in Sunnyvale, the politicians and supporters of Measure C lied through their teeth with shiny, forked tongues about how there the city will not be sued.

Well I guess they didn't lie. Technically they said that no city has ever been sued for an ordinance like this. As they left the fact out that no city has ever had an ordinance like this before makes it deceptive and therefore a lie.

AlexDD
11-19-2013, 9:57 PM
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/11/12/sunnyvale-mayor-tom-spitaleri-measure-c-gun-control?__utma=34673459.305048301.1384907017.13849 07017.1384907037.1&__utmb=34673459.7.10.1384907017&__utmc=34673459&__utmx=-&__utmz=34673459.1384907017.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utm ccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=182110629

That Mayor is just using this to make a name for himself for illusions of hire office in a demographic that will reward him for it plus free publicity and notoriety

Many local elected officials believe that they should hold some higher office. Fixing streets, keeping a city running smooth is boring for many. They need an issue with a spotlight. He found his :mad:

sbrady@Michel&Associates
11-19-2013, 11:16 PM
Well I guess they didn't lie. Technically they said that no city has ever been sued for an ordinance like this. As they left the fact out that no city has ever had an ordinance like this before makes it deceptive and therefore a lie.

Actually, the city of Richmond did have such an ordinance on the books a few years ago, but a letter from our office demanding that they repeal it with a complaint attached provoked them to comply. So, while a city has never been technically sued for an ordinance like this, the only city that had one repealed it based on our arguments.

Darto
11-19-2013, 11:43 PM
Facing a veteran police organization in a lawsuit is a public relations nightmare. Love it!

safewaysecurity
11-19-2013, 11:48 PM
Facing a veteran police organization in a lawsuit is a public relations nightmare. Love it!

^This

SVTPete83
11-19-2013, 11:54 PM
Facing a veteran police organization in a lawsuit is a public relations nightmare. Love it!

Hells yes. I can't wait to see what the press will say about it.

Oh wait. The press is liberal. They won't cover it.

On any account, having the police on our side will definitely help!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

baffomet
11-19-2013, 11:58 PM
If only it weren't illegal for SF residents to lend LCMs to friends for storage outside of SF until the lawsuit blows over...

What if you broke them down to rebuild kits?

CMonfort
11-20-2013, 12:11 AM
Unfortunately, the City bans them whether assembled or disassembled. Take a look at the text of the ordinance attached to the Complaint.

hardlyworking
11-20-2013, 8:49 AM
This hit local NPR station KCLU this morning covering central coast SLO through Thousand Oaks.

They mentioned the suit, relevant ordinance, and that the "NRA" was arguing that banning >10 mags "gave criminals the edge"

No mention of any "anti" slant in the 20-second blurb that I could discern.

:gunsmilie:

Ronin2
11-20-2013, 9:57 AM
Shameful bump in your face

johnny_22
11-20-2013, 10:22 AM
Can be found here:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/NRA-sues-S-F-to-kill-law-on-gun-magazines-4994726.php

Tincon
11-20-2013, 10:28 AM
Is this just about illegal taking of pre-ban magazines or would winning this case also strike down the state law as well?

This case would develop the law with regard to Second Amendment protection for firearm magazines. While it would not automatically strike down the state law, which isn't at issue in this case, if successful it would certainly open the door to such a challenge.

TimRB
11-20-2013, 10:37 AM
I think the fear is that this law, if it is vacated, will fall under the state's preemption blanket, thus removing any 2A issue and leaving the state magazine ban intact.

Tim

One Nation Under
11-20-2013, 10:43 AM
Hells yes. I can't wait to see what the press will say about it.

Oh wait. The press is liberal. They won't cover it.

On any account, having the police on our side will definitely help!



http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20131120/gun-control-nra-sues-san-francisco-over-magazine-capacity-law

read this article.....NO mention of the police officers association

Tincon
11-20-2013, 11:18 AM
I think the fear is that this law, if it is vacated, will fall under the state's preemption blanket, thus removing any 2A issue and leaving the state magazine ban intact.

Tim

If the fear is that the Federal Court will go out of it's way to invalidate a state law based on a state law preemption argument that isn't made by either party, I'd say that fear is entirely unfounded.

chainsaw
11-20-2013, 11:24 AM
Facing a veteran police organization in a lawsuit is a public relations nightmare. Love it!

No, it isn't. Everyone knows that the real plaintiff is the NRA, that the NRA is footing the bill, and that the NRA is represented by their regular counsel. The pro-forma plaintiffs (three individuals and the veteran police officer's association) are just that … pro forma. That's completely common practice in constitutional lawsuits.

If you listen to the press coverage, they all talk about SF being sued by the NRA.

I'll leave the question of who is suffering a public relations nightmare to your imagination.

AKSOG
11-20-2013, 11:33 AM
I'm curious if this is going to be one of those lawsuits that drags on for years. How does the law effect the citizens in the meantime if so?

chainsaw
11-20-2013, 12:18 PM
Unlikely to drag on forever; the 9th circuit is faster than the ones back east. Also, this one looks like it could be resolved at the motions stage, as the facts are unlikely to be in dispute, and it is a question of law.

In interesting question is whether the plaintiffs want to or can get an injunction to prevent enforcement while this action is pending. This is interesting, because it may foretell the ultimate fate of this case.

hardlyworking
11-20-2013, 12:52 PM
Yup they didn't mention anything about state preemption because that's the back-up plan.

SF *should* know better, they are just trying to squeek one past us and with all due justice I hope it gets curb-stomped while giving 2A magazine protection jurisprudence in our courts.

Big thumbs up CMonfort!

Tincon
11-20-2013, 12:57 PM
I thought that if you don't make an argument in your complaint, you can't add it later. But then, I know very little about federal civil procedure.

Not exactly, see FRCP 15.

sevendayweekend
11-20-2013, 1:20 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/NRA-sues-S-F-to-kill-law-on-gun-magazines-4994726.php[/url]

?????????????????

"So far, no court has overturned a law banning high-capacity guns or magazines, and several state courts have upheld California's prohibition on sales of most types of semiautomatic weapons."

sevendayweekend
11-20-2013, 1:22 PM
ps - thanks nra

fizux
11-20-2013, 1:24 PM
Unlikely to drag on forever; the 9th circuit is faster than the ones back east. Also, this one looks like it could be resolved at the motions stage, as the facts are unlikely to be in dispute, and it is a question of law.

In interesting question is whether the plaintiffs want to or can get an injunction to prevent enforcement while this action is pending. This is interesting, because it may foretell the ultimate fate of this case.
Chovan was argued at 9CA on 2/15/2012, and decided 11/18/2013. Peruta, Richards, Baker were argued 349 days ago. Did you mention something about the timeliness of 9CA on 2A cases?

Yes, very little fact finding / discovery will be required, cutting at least a year off of the process.

chainsaw
11-20-2013, 1:40 PM
A year or a year and a half is pretty good for timeliness. Compare that to Parker, which has been dragging on for much longer. For example, it's reasonable likely that this case will be decided by the next presidential election, which would be a good opportunity (high turnout) to put more anti-gun measures on California ballots.

prometa
11-20-2013, 4:49 PM
subscribed. Affects me directly. I'm hoping to take days off work and listen to the arguments in person, if/when arguments are scheduled.

drew3630
11-20-2013, 6:03 PM
This 10 round magazine law/ordinance only applies to SF residents, correct? What about those of us who are not residents but happen to be visiting the city? Are we supposed to surrender our standard capacity magazines when we cross the Bay Bridge?

nutcase
11-20-2013, 7:49 PM
This 10 round magazine law/ordinance only applies to SF residents, correct? What about those of us who are not residents but happen to be visiting the city? Are we supposed to surrender our standard capacity magazines when we cross the Bay Bridge?

The text of the ordinance says, "No person, corporation, or other entity in the City may possess a large capacity magazine, whether assembled or disassembled."

So, no, this does not just apply to residents. If you are within the boundaries of San Francisco and do not fall into one of the excepted categories, you should not possess an LCM in San Francisco.

wjc
11-20-2013, 8:22 PM
Donated $150 for the war effort.

2nd Mass
11-20-2013, 11:36 PM
Go get em! Thank you for the update!

fizux
11-20-2013, 11:56 PM
A year or a year and a half is pretty good for timeliness. Compare that to Parker, which has been dragging on for much longer. For example, it's reasonable likely that this case will be decided by the next presidential election, which would be a good opportunity (high turnout) to put more anti-gun measures on California ballots.
Why bother with ballot initiatives? You already have a supermajority in the senate, and might have one in the assembly on Friday.

Do you think that putting something like SB249 on the ballot is more likely to pass than get a disproportionately high turnout from gun owners (who will also vote in other statewide elections)?

chainsaw
11-21-2013, 11:56 AM
A. I think if SB 249 and friends (bans of all semi-auto guns, ban of all large-capacity magazines) were on a statewide ballot, and they would get support from a competent organization, they would win. There is nothing pro-gun forces could do about that. But I don't think that this is a sensible approach to gun control, and gun control advocates see it the same way.

B. Assuming that this suit fails (I expect it to, although probably not quite as spectacularly as the CGF suits tend to), I would expect to see a wide variety of local anti-gun measures on local ballots, in those communities that have a well-organized political force willing to push gun control measures. And in those places where smart people put them on the ballot, I expect them to win (probably with similar majorities as we have seen so far). I see Sunnyvale as a trailblazer here.

By the way, I make it a point not work on elections that lose. If I remember right, the lowest point for me was a win that was barely two thirds.

taperxz
11-21-2013, 2:22 PM
A. I think if SB 249 and friends (bans of all semi-auto guns, ban of all large-capacity magazines) were on a statewide ballot, and they would get support from a competent organization, they would win. There is nothing pro-gun forces could do about that. But I don't think that this is a sensible approach to gun control, and gun control advocates see it the same way.

.

HA Tell that to the "No on prop 8" people.

If anything, A ballot measure would probably make people who don't own guns actually more informed. There would be so much literature out there debunking the BS that the antis put out, you may end up with more gun owners after the election than before.

Case and point, when the legislature was trying to pass these bills, i had friends who had never owned guns asking me how to buy one because they wanted to get one before they were banned.

chainsaw
11-21-2013, 7:02 PM
If anything, A ballot measure would probably make people who don't own guns actually more informed. There would be so much literature out there debunking the BS that the antis put out, you may end up with more gun owners after the election than before.

Case and point, when the legislature was trying to pass these bills, i had friends who had never owned guns asking me how to buy one because they wanted to get one before they were banned.

What you say is absolutely true. But in my opinion, it is far from enough to overcome the general population bias. Look at Sunnyvale, where prop C won with about 65% of the vote (rounded conveniently). With a serious campaign to inform low-knowledge voters, and perhaps even try to coax them to become gun owners, it would probable have won with "only" a 60% margin. Perhaps even as bad as 55% (and turning 10% of the electorate around is very hard, I know from trying).

Where is the money to pour into a statewide campaign? The whole budget of the NRA is a quarter billion dollars per year (and most of that is not free for political use, but needed for continuing operations). According to the most recent tax filings we have access to, the annual budget of the CGF is a few hundred thousand $, and the CGF can not campaign, being a 501(c)(3). Spending on Prop 8 was about $100M or more (the reported amount is smaller, but that was the dirtiest campaign ever, in terms of underreporting). That kind of money is simply not available to pro-gun groups.

I think we need to learn a lesson from Sunnyvale and SF.

Sgt Raven
11-21-2013, 7:32 PM
What you say is absolutely true. But in my opinion, it is far from enough to overcome the general population bias. Look at Sunnyvale, where prop C won with about 65% of the vote (rounded conveniently). With a serious campaign to inform low-knowledge voters, and perhaps even try to coax them to become gun owners, it would probable have won with "only" a 60% margin. Perhaps even as bad as 55% (and turning 10% of the electorate around is very hard, I know from trying).

Where is the money to pour into a statewide campaign? The whole budget of the NRA is a quarter billion dollars per year (and most of that is not free for political use, but needed for continuing operations). According to the most recent tax filings we have access to, the annual budget of the CGF is a few hundred thousand $, and the CGF can not campaign, being a 501(c)(3). Spending on Prop 8 was about $100M or more (the reported amount is smaller, but that was the dirtiest campaign ever, in terms of underreporting). That kind of money is simply not available to pro-gun groups.

I think we need to learn a lesson from Sunnyvale and SF.

The Anti's learned with Prop 15 not to run those types of Props during a Big Election.... SF's Prop H & S'vale's were low turnout elections....

chainsaw
11-21-2013, 8:06 PM
The Anti's learned with Prop 15 not to run those types of Props during a Big Election.... SF's Prop H & S'vale's were low turnout elections....

Prop 15 was a generation ago. People who were young voters back then are grandparents. People who were grandparents back then are dead. Much has changed since then. In a real socialist place, that used to be known as "comrade trend". For an example, remember that only 5 years ago, California approved proposition 8. If it were voted on today, the result would be the opposite, by at least a 60:40 margin. That's just 5 years!

And if you look at the turnout in Sunnyvale, it was actually not that low, about 30 to 50% (the detailed map is at the elections website). That's still significantly lower than presidential elections, but nowhere near tiny.

If I were to manage a campaign for an anti-gun measure, I would want it to be on a high turnout election. Here's why. The majority of California voters are either mildly anti-gun, or are gun-owners who support "reasonable" restrictions (like assault weapons bans or large-capacity mag bans). Remember, the most common gun is not the AR, but the 10/22. A very small number of voters is strongly anti-gun, and is guaranteed to show up. A small number of voters is strongly pro-gun (highly correlated with being gun owners, and mildly correlated with being republican). Remember, only between a quarter and a third of all households in California have a gun. So the more people show up to vote, the better the chance to pass anti-gun measures.

In reality, this is not going to happen state-wide, at least not for a few years.

taperxz
11-21-2013, 8:20 PM
What you say is absolutely true. But in my opinion, it is far from enough to overcome the general population bias. Look at Sunnyvale, where prop C won with about 65% of the vote (rounded conveniently). With a serious campaign to inform low-knowledge voters, and perhaps even try to coax them to become gun owners, it would probable have won with "only" a 60% margin. Perhaps even as bad as 55% (and turning 10% of the electorate around is very hard, I know from trying).

Where is the money to pour into a statewide campaign? The whole budget of the NRA is a quarter billion dollars per year (and most of that is not free for political use, but needed for continuing operations). According to the most recent tax filings we have access to, the annual budget of the CGF is a few hundred thousand $, and the CGF can not campaign, being a 501(c)(3). Spending on Prop 8 was about $100M or more (the reported amount is smaller, but that was the dirtiest campaign ever, in terms of underreporting). That kind of money is simply not available to pro-gun groups.

I think we need to learn a lesson from Sunnyvale and SF.

Sunnyvale is Sunnyvale. You start messing with an initiative that affects all sportsmen, target shooters, people who just own guns and don't pay attention to politics and see what happens.

IMHO an initiative would open up pandoras box for the antis. They too are better off under the radar when it comes to this stuff. Why do you think they picked little ole Sunnyvale?

Look what happened on the flip side in South San Francisco. That was a situation where i was able to help to contact some people here on who to send letters to. Specifically Mark Addiego who endorsed the hollow point issue. It died real fast! The people of South San Francisco rejected to whole idea and don't want to confused with San Francisco. I have a special knowledge of SSF.:)

Point is, you think suburbs are all anti gun until you open up the box.

fizux
11-21-2013, 10:20 PM
By the way, I make it a point not work on elections that lose. If I remember right, the lowest point for me was a win that was barely two thirds.

and turning 10% of the electorate around is very hard, I know from trying

For an example, remember that only 5 years ago, California approved proposition 8. If it were voted on today, the result would be the opposite, by at least a 60:40 margin. That's just 5 years!
___

chainsaw
11-21-2013, 10:51 PM
You start messing with an initiative that affects all sportsmen, target shooters, people who just own guns and don't pay attention to politics and see what happens.

Sportsmen? You mean hunters? That's a vanishingly small fraction of the population of California. I just looked it up: There are about a 300K hunting licenses in California. And about 23M voters. A little over 1%.

Target shooters? A slightly larger fraction.

People who own guns? As I said above, that's about 1/4 to 1/3 of the households. More of those in rural areas (where I live, most households have guns, usually multiple), fewer in urban/suburban areas. Of those, many are already reliably conservative (and we know how relevant conservatives are in California politics).

Imagine a "common sense" gun control measure, like the one in Sunnyvale. If all sportsmen, target shooters, and gun owners vote against it, it only needs to get 2/3 of the yes vote among non-gun-owners, and it still wins.

taperxz
11-21-2013, 11:01 PM
Sportsmen? You mean hunters? That's a vanishingly small fraction of the population of California. I just looked it up: There are about a 300K hunting licenses in California. And about 23M voters. A little over 1%.

Target shooters? A slightly larger fraction.

People who own guns? As I said above, that's about 1/4 to 1/3 of the households. More of those in rural areas (where I live, most households have guns, usually multiple), fewer in urban/suburban areas. Of those, many are already reliably conservative (and we know how relevant conservatives are in California politics).

Imagine a "common sense" gun control measure, like the one in Sunnyvale. If all sportsmen, target shooters, and gun owners vote against it, it only needs to get 2/3 of the yes vote among non-gun-owners, and it still wins.

You are underestimating the common gun owner who doesn't use it but doesn't want to lose it. There are no real statistic on real gun ownership.

Registration is still virtually new. Its still pandoras box. I guarantee there are more gun owners than the statistics show. They are just really silent.

CrazyPhuD
11-24-2013, 12:49 PM
Here's an interesting/potentially disturbing question. Since the city of SF both owns and polices SFO, is the SF Police Code enforced on airport property?

If so wouldn't that make possession of standard capacity magazines at SFO illegal. Which would then say no one traveling through SFO could do so with said magazines(and of course anything shipped via air that goes through SFO could be confiscated if discovered, unless you meet the exemption).

Dooligan
11-24-2013, 1:29 PM
Will donate monday. Time to re - up on my membership too...

Tincon
11-24-2013, 1:34 PM
Here's an interesting/potentially disturbing question. Since the city of SF both owns and polices SFO, is the SF Police Code enforced on airport property?

If so wouldn't that make possession of standard capacity magazines at SFO illegal. Which would then say no one traveling through SFO could do so with said magazines(and of course anything shipped via air that goes through SFO could be confiscated if discovered, unless you meet the exemption).

I don't think so, SFO is in unincorporated San Mateo County. ARTICLE I of the San Francisco Municipal Code itself would seem to limit it's application to within the boundaries of the City and County of San Francisco. Even aside from that, I don't know of any legal princinple that would cause the law of one municipality/county to apply on land it happens to own which is within the borders of another county.

chainsaw
11-24-2013, 1:38 PM
Can we please merge this thread with the one in the "correct" forum? It's confusing to have the facts (or opinions) spread over two places.

prometa
11-24-2013, 7:07 PM
Here's an interesting/potentially disturbing question. Since the city of SF both owns and polices SFO, is the SF Police Code enforced on airport property?

If so wouldn't that make possession of standard capacity magazines at SFO illegal. Which would then say no one traveling through SFO could do so with said magazines(and of course anything shipped via air that goes through SFO could be confiscated if discovered, unless you meet the exemption).

NYC does this with their airports. It only applies to individuals whose final airport is JFK or La Guardia, but does apply even if the final destination isn't NYC.

kcbrown
11-24-2013, 7:55 PM
If the fear is that the Federal Court will go out of it's way to invalidate a state law based on a state law preemption argument that isn't made by either party, I'd say that fear is entirely unfounded.

Suits like this are really excellent testing grounds for stuff like this. I really can't wait to see what the federal courts actually do here. My prediction is that they will uphold the ban, so I agree with you with respect to them not using the preemption argument. They'd use the preemption argument (whether or not it was made) if doing so worked toward their purposes, but it doesn't here. This is an opportunity for them to neuter the right further, and I expect them to take it.

By the way, one really excellent reason for backing the NRA for suits such as this is that you know they will not fail for lack of resources.

I'm really glad to see this one. SF may be doing us a favor here in the same way Illinois did, by banning something entirely. I expect the judiciary to uphold the ban because, after all, this isn't a "substantial" burden on the right (and thus rational basis will be used) and I have no reason to believe the Supreme Court will grant cert to the case But as with everything else I expect, I am looking forward to being wrong.

arsilva32
11-24-2013, 9:39 PM
This case would develop the law with regard to Second Amendment protection for firearm magazines. While it would not automatically strike down the state law, which isn't at issue in this case, if successful it would certainly open the door to such a challenge.



so if won this would start a precedence for other cases right?

Sgt Raven
11-24-2013, 10:18 PM
Suits like this are really excellent testing grounds for stuff like this. I really can't wait to see what the federal courts actually do here. My prediction is that they will uphold the ban, so I agree with you with respect to them not using the preemption argument. They'd use the preemption argument (whether or not it was made) if doing so worked toward their purposes, but it doesn't here. This is an opportunity for them to neuter the right further, and I expect them to take it.

By the way, one really excellent reason for backing the NRA for suits such as this is that you know they will not fail for lack of resources.

I'm really glad to see this one. SF may be doing us a favor here in the same way Illinois did, by banning something entirely. I expect the judiciary to uphold the ban because, after all, this isn't a "substantial" burden on the right (and thus rational basis will be used) and I have no reason to believe the Supreme Court will grant cert to the case But as with everything else I expect, I am looking forward to being wrong.


Between this suit, New York & their 7 round mag law and others, ruling against gun owners might be "dropping the frog in boiling water"......Even if SCOTUS try to ignore us......

Tincon
11-24-2013, 10:27 PM
so if won this would start a precedence for other cases right?

Yes.

rips31
11-25-2013, 8:55 PM
I don't think so, SFO is in unincorporated San Mateo County. ARTICLE I of the San Francisco Municipal Code itself would seem to limit it's application to within the boundaries of the City and County of San Francisco. Even aside from that, I don't know of any legal princinple that would cause the law of one municipality/county to apply on land it happens to own which is within the borders of another county.

SFO is actually part of San Francisco, just not within the 7x7 area.

Tincon
11-25-2013, 8:59 PM
SFO is actually part of San Francisco, just not within the 7x7 area.
Err, not according to this: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:35119201967323::NO::P3_FID:1653945

What are you basing that on?

taperxz
11-25-2013, 9:26 PM
SFO is actually part of San Francisco, just not within the 7x7 area.

Nope. SFO is in San Mateo county. San Mateo county laws are what are enforced and applied. Crimes committed at SFO are sent to San Mateo county courts and DA for prosecution.

rips31
11-26-2013, 5:29 PM
Err, not according to this: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:35119201967323::NO::P3_FID:1653945

What are you basing that on?

Nope. SFO is in San Mateo county. San Mateo county laws are what are enforced and applied. Crimes committed at SFO are sent to San Mateo county courts and DA for prosecution.

Wow...do you guys even read what I wrote?

SFO is actually part of San Francisco, just not within the 7x7 area.

In other words, while SFO may not be within San Francisco PROPER (i.e. the 7mi x 7mi area), it is still a part of the City/County of San Francisco (San Francisco purchased the land on 30 August 1930). While San Mateo County may end up doing the prosecution, it may just be an agreement between counties. And in case you still don't believe me, see the following:

http://www.flysfo.com/about-sfo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_International_Airport

Tincon
11-26-2013, 5:36 PM
If you are suggesting that any land SF owns is subject to SF law, I'd like to hear your legal basis.

kcbrown
11-26-2013, 5:48 PM
If you are suggesting that any land SF owns is subject to SF law, I'd like to hear your legal basis.

How is jurisdiction decided when a chartered city (or other standalone government entity) owns land outside its normal jurisdiction?

Wouldn't its charter dictate that?


Is the land in question merely owned by San Francisco, or has it been annexed by it?

RipVanWinkle
11-27-2013, 7:07 AM
http://www.flysfo.com/about-sfo/safety-security

San Francisco Police Department Airport Bureau
The San Francisco Police Department-Airport Bureau provides basic police services to the airport, enforces the airport’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security plan, and supports the individual security plans of the airlines. The San Francisco Police Department’s Airport Bureau also plays a crucial role in the airport’s emergency response capabilities. Read more about the SFPD Airport Bureau at sf-police.org.
- See more at: http://www.flysfo.com/about-sfo/safety-security#sthash.NpXQTYkp.dpuf

http://sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=3800

The Airport Bureau of the San Francisco Police Department was established on July 1, 1997, as the successor to the San Francisco International Airport Police. The SFPD Airport Bureau fully embraces the principles of community-oriented policing.
Within the Bureau, there are a number of specialized police units dedicated to the safety and security of San Francisco International Airport. In addition to the officers who provide daily patrol of the Airport, other units include:


Deputy Chief
Denise Schmitt

http://www.sf-police.org/modules/ShowImage.aspx?imageid=10609




• K-9 teams. The K-9s work closely with several explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) technicians, also dedicated to the Airport Bureau.
• Dignitary Protection - This team works in conjunction with federal, state, and foreign law enforcement to provide security for high-level dignitaries.
• Traffic Accident Investigation
• Ground Transportation Enforcement
• Motorcycles
• Cargo Theft Task Force • Bicycle Patrol Unit
• DEA Task Force (Drug Enforcement Administration)
• REACT Task Force (Computer-related crimes)
• Public Information Office
• Investigation Services - Liaison with the San Mateo Sheriff's Office Detectives
• Police Service Aides (PSA) - PSAs provide traffic control and enforcement for the Airport as well as airfield entry control and perimeter security.

Ronin2
11-27-2013, 8:09 AM
ps - thanks nra

Donated $150 for the war effort.

Will donate monday. Time to re - up on my membership too...

By the way, one really excellent reason for backing the NRA for suits such as this is that you know they will not fail for lack of resources..

Thank You NRA! Thank you to all the Calguns members who have stepped up and put their money where their keypads/mouths are and made a special donation to NRA-ILA in support of this vital litigation in support of California gun owners of all stripes!

keedba65
12-05-2013, 4:59 PM
In a news report on the new laws, and the NRA lawsuits, there was a law professor from Santa Clara, who specializes in 2A law, who opined that the NRA would probably not win because this issue has already been reviewed by the DC court of appeals (Heller II - No. 10-7036.) and the magazine capacity ban was upheld there. Is this something that the NRA, and their attorneys, are concerned about?

John Galt
12-05-2013, 6:57 PM
Which news report?

This is an interesting commentary on Heller II.

On "assault weapon" and large cap magazine bans. It concludes those are "in common use" and thus protected by the right to arms, but that the ban survives intermediate scrutiny since other arms more suitable for self-defense are allowed and there isn't a showing that these are particularly suited for self-defense.
It is ironic to me that such a showing should be necessary. These items (particularly the magazines) are regularly utilized by non-specialized law enforcement agencies. As police use of deadly force is supposed to be for defensive purposes only, the suitably of these items for self-defense should be a given.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2011/10/ruling_in_helle.php

Being that retired police officers who have had training in the use of weapons with standard capacity magazines have filed the complaint it makes it more interesting. What types of weapons does the swat team use when defending themselves inside a residence? For the most part not shotguns and handguns.

keedba65
12-06-2013, 1:25 PM
The report was actually about a possible lawsuit in Sunnyvale and not the San Francisco lawsuit, but the laws are almost exactly the same (maybe they started from the same text)
Reality Check: Can NRA Win Sunnyvale Lawsuit? (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Reality-Check-Can-NRA-Win-Sunnyvale-Lawsuit-231238761.html)

Excerpt:
"Deep Gulasekaram, a constitutional law professor at Santa Clara Law School with a specialization in Second Amendment issues ... believes that the federal courts in California will likely be sympathetic to the same arguments made before the judges in the D.C. Appeals Court."

CMonfort
12-11-2013, 12:20 PM
In light of this lawsuit and the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction (MPI), the City has agreed to stay enforcement of the magazine ban for 30 days.

A stipulation noting the agreed stay of enforcement and setting a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' MPI should be filed sometime today.

hardlyworking
12-11-2013, 12:40 PM
In light of this lawsuit and the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction (MPI), the City has agreed to stay enforcement of the magazine ban for 30 days.

A stipulation noting the agreed stay of enforcement and setting a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' MPI should be filed sometime today.

Well! That's awfully considerate of them. Nice work!

OleCuss
12-11-2013, 2:17 PM
In light of this lawsuit and the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction (MPI), the City has agreed to stay enforcement of the magazine ban for 30 days.

A stipulation noting the agreed stay of enforcement and setting a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' MPI should be filed sometime today.

Very good! I'm liking the results even if they are very preliminary.

Thank you.

Movin&Shakin
12-11-2013, 8:05 PM
CMonfort - I contacted your office to make a donation a couple months ago, and go no return call. Seriously?

taperxz
12-11-2013, 8:35 PM
CMonfort - I contacted your office to make a donation a couple months ago, and go no return call. Seriously?

M&R is the law firm for the NRA!

They are not going to take donations. You can donate to the NRA by becoming a member or donate the NRA-ILA.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/california.aspx

CMonfort
12-12-2013, 12:08 AM
CMonfort - I contacted your office to make a donation a couple months ago, and go no return call. Seriously?

My apologies, I was not aware of that.

The best place to donate to our firm's litigation efforts on behalf of the NRA is through the NRA-ILA's Legal Action Project here: https://www.nrailadonate.org/forms/default.asp?campaignid=2013LegalAction

There is also a sticky in the other 2A subforum entitled "How to Donate to Support and Stay Informed About NRA’s California Efforts" here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=845492).

Thank you for your support and again, my apologies. The best number to contact if you have an inquiry for our office is (562) 216-4444.

-Clint

CMonfort
12-27-2013, 5:57 PM
Earlier today, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prevent the SF ordinance from being enforced while the case proceeds to a resolution on the merits. A copy of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is available here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Notice-of-Motion-and-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-In-Support.pdf

fizux
01-24-2014, 10:12 AM
Update: Hearing set for the preliminary injunction motion.
2/11/2014, 10:00 AM at 450GG.

@CMonfort - IRL or CourtCall?

ZombieTactics
01-24-2014, 3:39 PM
... It will be nice for SF to write NRA more checks.

At some point in the future someone should make it a campaign issue ... about how their opponent is "funding the NRA" because of faulty/stupid policies. :rolleyes:

CMonfort
01-31-2014, 12:44 PM
The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Notice-of-Motion-and-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-In-Support.pdf) in the NRA supported litigation seeking to confirm Second Amendment protections for standard capacity magazines is now fully briefed. For those that aren't aware, this case is one of several coordinated nationwide cases addressing this issue.

Links to the City's Opposition and Plaintiffs' Reply filings are available below:

CITY'S FILINGS

The City's Opposition to Plaintiffs' MPI (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_City-and-County-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Christopher Koper (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Declaration-of-Christopher-S.-Koper-In-Support-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)Declaration of John Donahue (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Declaration-of-John-J.-Donohue-III-In-Support-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Frank Zimring (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Declaration-of-Franklin-E.-Zimring-In-Support-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Lucy Allen (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Declaration-of-Lucy-P.-Allen-In-Support-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of David Lazar (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Declaration-of-Captain-David-S.-Lazar-In-Support-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)


PLAINTIFFS' FILINGS

Plaintiffs' Reply Brief (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Reply-to-Defendants-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Supplemental Declaration of Gary Kleck filed in support of Reply (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Supplemental-Declaration-of-Gary-Kleck-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Gary Kleck filed in support of MPI (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-Gary-Kleck-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Massad Ayoob filed in Support of MPI (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-Massad-Ayoob-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Steve Helsley filed in support of MPI (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-Stephen-Helsley-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of James Curcuruto (NSSF) filed in support of MPI/Reply (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-James-Curcuruto-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction1.pdf)
Plaintiffs' Objections to City's Evidence (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Plaintiffs-Objections-to-Evidence-of-Defendants-The-City-and-County-of-San-Francisco.pdf)


Links to all other case filings are available here:

http://michellawyers.com/sfvpoa-v-san-francisco/

-Clint

Noble Cause
01-31-2014, 2:16 PM
The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Notice-of-Motion-and-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-In-Support.pdf) in the NRA supported litigation seeking to confirm Second Amendment protections for standard capacity magazines is now fully briefed. For those that aren't aware, this case is one of several coordinated nationwide cases addressing this issue.

Links to the City's Opposition and Plaintiffs' Reply filings are available below:

CITY'S FILINGS

The City's Opposition to Plaintiffs' MPI (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_City-and-County-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Christopher Koper (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Declaration-of-Christopher-S.-Koper-In-Support-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)Declaration of John Donahue (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Declaration-of-John-J.-Donohue-III-In-Support-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Frank Zimring (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Declaration-of-Franklin-E.-Zimring-In-Support-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Lucy Allen (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Declaration-of-Lucy-P.-Allen-In-Support-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of David Lazar (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Declaration-of-Captain-David-S.-Lazar-In-Support-of-San-Franciscos-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)


PLAINTIFFS' FILINGS

Plaintiffs' Reply Brief (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Reply-to-Defendants-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Supplemental Declaration of Gary Kleck filed in support of Reply (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Supplemental-Declaration-of-Gary-Kleck-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Gary Kleck filed in support of MPI (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-Gary-Kleck-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Massad Ayoob filed in Support of MPI (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-Massad-Ayoob-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of Steve Helsley filed in support of MPI (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-Stephen-Helsley-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf)
Declaration of James Curcuruto (NSSF) filed in support of MPI/Reply (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-James-Curcuruto-In-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction1.pdf)
Plaintiffs' Objections to City's Evidence (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Conformed-Plaintiffs-Objections-to-Evidence-of-Defendants-The-City-and-County-of-San-Francisco.pdf)


Links to all other case filings are available here:

http://michellawyers.com/sfvpoa-v-san-francisco/

-Clint

Thank you for the links.

Reading Kleck's reply now.

So much Win. He is point by point exposing their falsehoods and attempts
at discrediting his (Prof. Kleck's) meticulous research.

Will post more when I finish reading.


Noble

Noble Cause
01-31-2014, 2:55 PM
Finished Prof. Kleck's response.

Prof. Kleck put a smile on my face with his detailed response & observations.

Emphasis mine:

Anyone who was a genuine expert on the conditions under which one can
infer conclusions about a population from a sample would never draw the
conclusions that Ms. Allen drew, based on the sample she analyzed.
This by itself is a strong indication that she is not an expert on these matters.

Prof. John Donohue is an intellectually dishonest nitwit:
(actually, that is not a surprise, based on his previous anti-gun ramblings)


John Donahue makes, or hints at, a plainly false claim in his paragraph 11.
He vaguely alludes to “a review of the resolution (sic) of mass shootings in
the U.S.” on which he based his conclusions, but does not say if this is a
review he performed or if he was instead citing a review conducted by others.
If it is the former, he failed to describe or even briefly outline the methods by
which he conducted the review, making it impossible to judge whether it was
competently done. If it is the latter, he failed to cite a source where a
reader could find a detailed description of the “review.”
Expert scholars describe their methods and cite sources. As things stand,
there is no reliable basis for believing Donahue was doing anything in
paragraph 11 other than stating his own unsupported personal opinions.


In sum, Donahue could cite only one genuinely supportive incident (the 1993
Long Island shooting), and one possibly supportive case (the Gabby Giffords
shooting), over a period of 30 years, to support his claim that citizens
have “frequently” subdued shooters while they stopped to reload. One or
two cases would not fit most people’s notions of what “frequently” means.

As to his claim that there have been “at least 20 separate shootings” where
this happened. Donahue provides no documentation at all. Twenty cases in
thirty years, in a nation with over 300 million people, is not very frequent
either, but Donahue did not supply supporlg evidence of this many or even
half this many.


Thank You, Professor Gary Kleck.
You've brightened my day considerably ! :D


Noble

strongpoint
01-31-2014, 3:58 PM
Massad Ayoob makes another great contribution to the cause. The opportunity to read his resume is almost enough to justify the list of amicus briefs all by itself.

Apropos of nothing, I happen to have a tenuous link to Dave Lazar -- before the captain was a captain, or even an SFPD officer, he worked in the Public Safety office of a university in San Francisco (which shall remain anonymous) where I aimlessly wasted a couple years of my youth. He's a small man who took his job very seriously, which led to his being nicknamed Tiny Grim. I understand the solemnity -- and the nickname -- follow him to this day.

Patrick Aherne
01-31-2014, 4:22 PM
It's important to note that Captain Lazar's citation of an incident where two PLAINCLOTHES officers in an UNMARKED car were shot at by gang-bangers armed with a Glock with an extended magazine. In reading the reports, the plainclothes officers never identified themselves, or announced their office before being assaulted with a firearm. I guarantee the suspects will say they did not know the officers were police, thereby making Captain Lazar's argument moot. If the suspects would shoot at a plainclothes cop in an unmarked car, then they would shoot at regular joe citizen, too, and he might need more than 10 rounds, just like the cops do.

Drivedabizness
01-31-2014, 6:40 PM
Actually, the city of Richmond did have such an ordinance on the books a few years ago, but a letter from our office demanding that they repeal it with a complaint attached provoked them to comply. So, while a city has never been technically sued for an ordinance like this, the only city that had one repealed it based on our arguments.

Counselor - please start talking to Pleasant Hill :)

tonelar
01-31-2014, 7:26 PM
Captain Lazar's letter is dumbfounding. So, police officers (with the benfit of body armor and backup) benefit from having 10+ round magazines, while citizens with 10+ rounds in their defensive weapon are just more of a danger?

BS

fizux
01-31-2014, 7:41 PM
Captain Lazar's letter is dumbfounding. So, police officers (with the benfit of body armor and backup) benefit from having 10+ round magazines, while citizens with 10+ rounds in their defensive weapon are just more of a danger?

BS
Yup... and military reservist "civilians" read on to CNWDI are too high risk to allow std cap mags, because they might do more damage.

LCMs also contribute to the suicide rate, since a large fraction of suicide victims miss the first 10 times and get unlucky on #11.

Noble Cause
01-31-2014, 7:55 PM
Yup... and military reservist "civilians" read on to CNWDI are too high risk to allow std cap mags, because they might do more damage.

LCMs also contribute to the suicide rate, since a large fraction of suicide victims miss the first 10 times and get unlucky on #11.

Lol.

You realize Prof. Donohue would consider that to be an excellent
argument, right ? :rolleyes:


Noble

fizux
02-11-2014, 6:59 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Judge-skeptical-of-bid-to-block-new-S-F-gun-law-5225958.php

OleCuss
02-11-2014, 7:37 PM
Thank you for the link.

It's nice when the judge goes into orals with no bias regarding the evidence:

U.S. District Judge William Alsup said at the outset of the hearing in San Francisco, "I see precious few cases where a homeowner has warded off an intruder with 10 or more bullets," but many cases in which criminals wielded large-capacity guns.

"You have zero evidence ... that these oversize magazines are used for common self-defense," Alsup told the NRA's attorney, Anna Barvir.

With the obvious caveat that I don't have all the information, I'm betting on a loss at this level.

GNE
02-11-2014, 7:41 PM
I suppose the fact that its been impossible for civilian homeowners to lawfully purchase "large-capacity guns" for the past 14 years has no bearing on their usage rates in home defense.

Noble Cause
02-11-2014, 8:28 PM
I suppose the fact that its been impossible for civilian homeowners to lawfully purchase "large-capacity guns" for the past 14 years has no bearing on their usage rates in home defense.

Bingo.

So apparently the criminals get to continue their criminal behavior of
"large capacity guns", while law-abiding citizens keep having their ability
slowly diminished into ineffectiveness.

After the next massacre in a defenseless, gun free zone, New York will further
reduce mag capacity from its current imbecilic seven, to 3. Then 1. Then none.

California will do the same, effectively neutering the Second Amendment.


Noble

OleCuss
02-11-2014, 8:42 PM
Actually, the fascinating thing for me is that the judge re-casts the idea of common arms as being firearms which are commonly reported to be used for self-defense. IIRC, that is not how the SCOTUS defined common arms.


The idea that this could be applied in Kalifornia is ridiculous.

I legally own a bunch of GTRM magazines and a RAW. It is one of my weapons for self-defense. I don't hunt at all.

But you know? If a bad guy broke into my home I'd actually be using my pistol and shotgun for self-defense because my RAW has to be locked up in a safe due to the asinine laws in this state (otherwise my wife and daughter could be construed as being in possession of a RAW which is not in their name).

But if you give me a little warning of an impending attack and that RAW/PDW and its 30-rounders would be put to good use.

Net effect? My RAW/PDW and its GTRMs is a self-defense weapon and that is its sole use. But it won't show up in the statistics as such even if someone tries a home invasion - because the state effectively prevents its use in self-defense.

Now for the caveat to the above? Our police are not allowed to go around assassinating folk. Their firearms are only used in self-defense (themselves or the folk who are threatened). There are an awful lot of LEOs who bring AR-15s with them to the fight. If self-defense use is what is at question, LEO use of AR-15s and with GTRMs in them should be put into evidence.

But I'm not a lawyer.

fizux
02-11-2014, 9:03 PM
If I lived in San Francisco who is probably spinning in his grave, I would be pissed as it would be my money they are using to defend this
I live in SF, and I have no idea WTF this means.

Are you proposing that people live inside a dead guy who later became a Saint? Needs more cowbell commas.

nick
02-11-2014, 9:13 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Judge-skeptical-of-bid-to-block-new-S-F-gun-law-5225958.php

So, the police uses them in self-defense, and cops generally have backup available, as opposed to regular people. Per this judge, they don't need high capacity mags then.

nick
02-11-2014, 9:17 PM
And yeah, somehow I don't see a win at this level, not with this unbiased specimen of a judge.

Tincon
02-11-2014, 10:13 PM
Actually, the fascinating thing for me is that the judge re-casts the idea of common arms as being firearms which are commonly reported to be used for self-defense. IIRC, that is not how the SCOTUS defined common arms.


Actually, it is. Well, actually, they said arms typically used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Not arms in "common use." That's a misconception shared by many people (including, sadly, Gura). The judge is actually correct, but he needs to take into account the 14 year ban on such arms when examining what the typical use is.

Librarian
02-11-2014, 11:51 PM
Actually, it is. Well, actually, they said arms typically used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Not arms in "common use." That's a misconception shared by many people (including, sadly, Gura). The judge is actually correct, but he needs to take into account the 14 year ban on such arms when examining what the typical use is.

Sticking to civilian arms (mortars, to go back to a different post, might be seen to be 'in common use' in the military), kindly distinguish between "arms typically used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes" and "arms in common use."

sholling
02-11-2014, 11:55 PM
The judge sounds like the poster child for kcbrown's view of the judiciary. Another 'don't bother me with evidence or petty details like the constitution - I've already made up my mind' kind of judge.

Noble Cause
02-12-2014, 12:01 AM
... Several Portions of original post snipped for brevity...

But you know? If a bad guy broke into my home I'd actually be using my pistol and shotgun for self-defense because my RAW has to be locked up in a safe due to the asinine laws in this state (otherwise my wife and daughter could be construed as being in possession of a RAW which is not in their name).

But if you give me a little warning of an impending attack and that RAW/PDW and its 30-rounders would be put to good use.

Net effect? My RAW/PDW and its GTRMs is a self-defense weapon and that is its sole use. But it won't show up in the statistics as such even if someone tries a home invasion - because the state effectively prevents its use in self-defense.



Emphasis mine.

Was talking about various aspects of this with a friend recently,
and we came to the same conclusions.

There are state generated problems that negate using a RAW for defensive
purposes, as you point out.

Bullet button equipped AR15's are also handicapped from proper usage.

The awkwardness of trying to exchange a magazine while defending oneself
while under attack could have deadly consequences for the person trying to
defend themselves.

Thus, I would venture to say, most people would use alternative firearms
to defend themselves, such as shotgun, mini 14, & handgun.

That is, the ones that can afford to purchase multiple firearms.
And so we come back to your conclusion:

But it won't show up in the statistics as such even if someone tries a
home invasion - because the state effectively prevents its use in self-defense.


Noble

fizux
02-12-2014, 12:18 AM
Sticking to civilian arms (mortars, to go back to a different post, might be seen to be 'in common use' in the military), kindly distinguish between "arms typically used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes" and "arms in common use."
IMHO, "arms in common use" are susceptible to a government ban; whereas, "arms typically used by civvies for good stuff" is akin to "if it was legal, what would be the typical use for a law abiding citizen."

As the stereotypical fizux comment generally requires at least one asinine example, so here it is...
1. A nuclear weapon would be typically used by a law abiding citizen to ... well, uhh, I dunno, blow up home invaders? No, fail, try again next time.
2. A "high" capacity evil black magazine with a capacity of 30 rounds would be typically used by a law abiding citizen to ... (i) go to the range and practice marksmanship, while saving some thumb skin (check +), or (ii) defend the home against multiple attackers (check +, Heller on point, muy bueno), or (iii) use as a shim to support a rickety table leg at a dive bar... survey says: BS --- not typical use.

Nowhere in the Heller opinion did I see a balancing test that includes what the average criminal does with the item in question. Therefore, I fail to see why criminal misuse stats even apply here. If the criminal misuse stats matter, then the 1A is worthless, since pretty much every crime involves some sort of overt act (actus reus, aka "speech") and/or active communication with a co-conspirator.

Librarian
02-12-2014, 2:05 AM
IMHO, "arms in common use" are susceptible to a government ban; whereas, "arms typically used by civvies for good stuff" is akin to "if it was legal, what would be the typical use for a law abiding citizen."

As the stereotypical fizux comment generally requires at least one asinine example, so here it is...
1. A nuclear weapon would be typically used by a law abiding citizen to ... well, uhh, I dunno, blow up home invaders? No, fail, try again next time.
2. A "high" capacity evil black magazine with a capacity of 30 rounds would be typically used by a law abiding citizen to ... (i) go to the range and practice marksmanship, while saving some thumb skin (check +), or (ii) defend the home against multiple attackers (check +, Heller on point, muy bueno), or (iii) use as a shim to support a rickety table leg at a dive bar... survey says: BS --- not typical use.

Nowhere in the Heller opinion did I see a balancing test that includes what the average criminal does with the item in question. Therefore, I fail to see why criminal misuse stats even apply here. If the criminal misuse stats matter, then the 1A is worthless, since pretty much every crime involves some sort of overt act (actus reus, aka "speech") and/or active communication with a co-conspirator.
Well, thanks, I guess, but what I really want is the attributes that distinguish one class from the other.

I'm trying to avoid a Justice Potter Stewart (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/obscenity.htm) situation I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court's decisions since Roth and Alberts, that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

kcbrown
02-12-2014, 2:35 AM
Actually, it is. Well, actually, they said arms typically used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Not arms in "common use." That's a misconception shared by many people (including, sadly, Gura). The judge is actually correct, but he needs to take into account the 14 year ban on such arms when examining what the typical use is.

And, actually, SCOTUS didn't even say that.

They said only what arms would not be protected by the 2nd Amendment. They didn't explicitly say which ones would be.

kcbrown
02-12-2014, 2:54 AM
The judge sounds like the poster child for kcbrown's view of the judiciary. Another 'don't bother me with evidence or petty details like the constitution - I've already made up my mind' kind of judge.

Nope. Couldn't be. Members of the judiciary are far too "professional" for that, and anyone who concludes otherwise simply doesn't have the necessary "hands-on, practical experience or insight into how cases are actually decided" (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=12648360&postcount=176). :laugh:

Tincon
02-12-2014, 3:08 AM
And, actually, SCOTUS didn't even say that.

They said only what arms would not be protected by the 2nd Amendment. They didn't explicitly say which ones would be.

True, although I think there is at least a strong implication that the standard is typical lawful use.

kcbrown
02-12-2014, 3:27 AM
True, although I think there is at least a strong implication that the standard is typical lawful use.

As we have seen in numerous cases, "strong implication" isn't sufficient for the lower courts, which means that if SCOTUS wants the standard to be what you say, it will have to "say so more plainly".

Until that point, many/most of the lower courts will regard all firearms as being unprotected until the point at which only one (or, perhaps, a handful) are left. After all, their standard is whether or not effective self-defense is itself rendered unavailable in the home, and that doesn't happen until all firearms are forbidden.

Tincon
02-12-2014, 3:32 AM
As we have seen in numerous cases, "strong implication" isn't sufficient for the lower courts, which means that if SCOTUS wants the standard to be what you say, it will have to "say so more plainly".

Until that point, many/most of the lower courts will regard all firearms as being unprotected until the point at which only one (or, perhaps, a handful) are left. After all, their standard is whether or not effective self-defense is itself rendered unavailable in the home, and that doesn't happen until all firearms are forbidden.

Also true. Hopefully SCOTUS will take such action soon.

kcbrown
02-12-2014, 4:25 AM
Also true. Hopefully SCOTUS will take such action soon.

That is my hope as well.

My expectation, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. However, that expectation is based more on a general sense of things than any specific evidence. While the evidence strongly indicates that SCOTUS will leave carry completely unprotected, there's no real evidence regarding the rest of the 2nd Amendment at this point. Inasmuch as carry itself is a 2nd Amendment question, it has to figure into the overall 2nd Amendment picture, but because it's a separate question from that of arms, it's not sufficient to leave me with more than a general suspicion about that.

We'll see, but don't be surprised at all if we don't see anytime soon. Even NRA v BATFE won't really address the question.

Epaphroditus
02-12-2014, 10:07 AM
U.S. District Judge William Alsup said at the outset of the hearing in San Francisco, "I see precious few cases where a homeowner has warded off an intruder with 10 or more bullets," but many cases in which criminals wielded large-capacity guns.

"You have zero evidence ... that these oversize magazines are used for common self-defense," Alsup told the NRA's attorney, Anna Barvir.

So does this mean we need to take a cue from the court and give them what they need? Next defensive shooting calls for a coupe of mags emptied so we can compile the statistics "requested"?

Maybe the judge has a twisted sense of humor and is slyly pointing out the "catch 22" situation ...

fizux
02-12-2014, 11:47 AM
Well, thanks, I guess, but what I really want is the attributes that distinguish one class from the other.

I'm trying to avoid a Justice Potter Stewart (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/obscenity.htm) situation
I totally get it, but no matter what we do, it seems like we are going to be stuck playing the chicken-or-the-egg game with DOJ for quite a while. Like Heller, we might need to look outside the jurisdiction to see what law abiding citizens typically use for lawful purposes.

What appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle yesterday is that the Heller test looks at the utility for lawful purposes, and does not balance that against the common misuse for criminal purposes.

Tincon
02-12-2014, 1:49 PM
I totally get it, but no matter what we do, it seems like we are going to be stuck playing the chicken-or-the-egg game with DOJ for quite a while. Like Heller, we might need to look outside the jurisdiction to see what law abiding citizens typically use for lawful purposes.

Indeed. Or just look at what the police use. I'm pretty sure those are law abiding citizens. What percentage of them choose to carry LCMs?

fizux
02-12-2014, 2:36 PM
Indeed. Or just look at what the police use. I'm pretty sure those are law abiding citizens. What percentage of them choose to carry LCMs?
100%, but LEOs are "special." I don't know why the threat they face is any different than the criminal threat everyone else faces, but that is apparently the prevailing way of thinking.

For a while my EDC was a FN M249 and I am, and at all times was, a law abiding citizen (except in the eyes of the fashion police, since my friends and I all wore matching outfits). Somehow, I don't think that argument is going to fly well (at least not until we get a few more good decisions out of SCOTUS).

Tincon
02-12-2014, 2:41 PM
Of course, but it does seem hard to ignore that a weapon overwhelmingly chosen by LE probably has some use beyond that of nefarious criminals.

BCA142
02-12-2014, 3:06 PM
Ah but they are HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS and we are but COMMON SUBJECTS.

bobbodaggit
02-12-2014, 3:13 PM
http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-skeptical-of-bid-to-block-new-S-F-gun-law-5225958.php

kcbrown
02-12-2014, 3:25 PM
Of course, but it does seem hard to ignore that a weapon overwhelmingly chosen by LE probably has some use beyond that of nefarious criminals.

It clearly does have some use beyond that of nefarious criminals: that of law enforcement! :D

Obviously, that is what the other side is going to argue: that somehow, law enforcement as an activity is fundamentally different from "mere" self-defense such that it requires the weapons in question while ordinary citizens do not. It is a fundamentally unsound argument, but the opposition is going to make it anyway (because it already has in numerous debates) and the courts will buy into it because they regard the right to keep and bear arms as very nearly nonexistent.

You need to understand that the opposition regards law enforcement activity as a legitimate offensive use of force, not a defensive one, and that they believe the weapons in question are only useful for offensive action.


No, perhaps the best argument we can put forth is that larger magazines actually have a greater defensive use than an offensive one, because someone on the offensive chooses the time, place, and victim for the attack, whilst the person on the defensive is reacting to the situation, and that means that the former has time and opportunity to prepare while the latter has neither, with the end result being that the defender is almost certainly going to be limited to his single sidearm while the offender can have anything he wishes. The only way the defender can somewhat equalize the situation is with magazines of sufficient size to ensure that he can prevail against any attacker and any number of attackers. The reason the magazine size matters is that changing magazines while one is under attack will significantly increase one's vulnerability, so the less one is forced to do so, the better. Conversely, the aggressor is generally going after those he presumes are unarmed, and experience shows that magazine changes in those situations do not place the aggressor at significant risk (the Virginia Tech massacre makes this plain).

As such, since criminals are not generally affected by magazine restrictions (whether as a result of ignoring them or as a result of their activities being unaffected by the restriction), it becomes a question of how restricting magazine size can make law-abiding citizens safer in the use of their firearms. The answer, of course, is that not only can it not, but such restrictions will merely put such citizens at a possibly critical disadvantage. What is the legitimate state interest in placing its citizenry at a defensive disadvantage?

Tincon
02-12-2014, 3:49 PM
The key to winning this case will be proving that LCMs (standard capacity magazines) are typically used by law abiding citizens for self-defense, and indeed that they are less able to defend themselves without them. I do think this can be done statistically and with experts, as well as with obvious logical arguments.

The "special danger" argument is a complete misinterpretation of the Heller opinion. It is apparently a reference to weapons described by the Heller court as "dangerous and unusual." That term has a meaning made very clear in Heller: weapons which would alarm the public if carried openly. There is no way an LCM fits this definition.

kcbrown
02-12-2014, 4:02 PM
The key to winning this case will be proving that LCMs (standard capacity magazines) are typically used by law abiding citizens for self-defense, and indeed that they are less able to defend themselves without them. I do think this can be done statistically and with experts, as well as with obvious logical arguments.


See my update. I agree. However, I also believe that the courts will willfully ignore our arguments to that effect.



The "special danger" argument is a complete misinterpretation of the Heller opinion. It is apparently a reference to weapons described by the Heller court as "dangerous and unusual." That term has a meaning made very clear in Heller: weapons which would alarm the public if carried openly. There is no way an LCM fits this definition.

Well, the problem with that is that in modern society, people are alarmed by any firearms that are carried openly. This is why "man with a gun" calls occur. That pretty much renders the "would the public be alarmed?" standard worthless for the entire 2nd Amendment arena. Under that standard, no firearm would be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Tincon
02-12-2014, 4:32 PM
Well, the problem with that is that in modern society, people are alarmed by any firearms that are carried openly. This is why "man with a gun" calls occur. That pretty much renders the "would the public be alarmed?" standard worthless for the entire 2nd Amendment arena. Under that standard, no firearm would be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

If your interpretation would result in all firearms being unprotected, and thus rendering the 2A a nullity, then obviously that interpretation is incorrect and unlikely to be supported by SCOTUS. I think it more likely that only unusual and particularly disturbing guns would be unprotected. Where that line lies however, the Court has given no real indication (I don't know what the firearm equivalent to a "headsman's axe" is).

kcbrown
02-12-2014, 4:51 PM
If your interpretation would result in all firearms being unprotected, and thus rendering the 2A a nullity, then obviously that interpretation is incorrect and unlikely to be supported by SCOTUS. I think it more likely that only unusual and particularly disturbing guns would be unprotected. Where that line lies however, the Court has given no real indication (I don't know what the firearm equivalent to a "headsman's axe" is).

My point is that the question of whether or not the public would be alarmed by the sight of an arm is, itself, insufficient for the purpose of determining whether a given arm is deserving of 2nd Amendment protection. Which is to say, you cannot use the fact that the public would be alarmed at the sight of an arm as sole justification for prohibition of said arm, as that would be applicable to all firearms today.

However, I would not go so far as to say that such an interpretation is unlikely to be supported by SCOTUS. For all we know, such reasoning may be employed by them to uphold laws forbidding open carry of firearms in public.


I do agree that SCOTUS is unlikely to uphold such a standard as regards what firearms may be kept at home. But for that purpose, the question of affray is rendered moot by the context.

Dvrjon
02-12-2014, 7:27 PM
For a while my EDC was a FN M249 and I am, and at all times was, a law abiding citizen (except in the eyes of the fashion police, since my friends and I all wore matching outfits).
Accessorizing with a SAW is always a persuasive fashion statement.

Cheers.

JR

wolfwood
02-12-2014, 9:02 PM
Dangerous and Unusual Misdirection: A Look at the Common Law Tradition of Prohibiting Going Armed with Dangerous and Unusual Weapons to the Terror of the People, as Cited in District of Columbia versus Heller
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1859395

I submitted this with the Court. This is a paper that shows dangerous and unusual refers to a class of conduct with a weapons and armor rather than a way to describe a weapon.

This is further supported by the Amicus brief filed by SAF in Emody's case in 2011.

http://hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/Embody-SAF-CGF-Amicus-2011-12-05.pdf

I"m just throwing that out for edification.

Michael Ehline
02-12-2014, 9:46 PM
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/11/california-lawsuit-filed-against-san-francisco-ban-on-possession-of-standard-capacity-firearm-magazines.aspx

Official case thread here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=854136

^^^^ You guys are living my dream. Stuck in PI, wishing I was doing God's work like you.

CrazyPhuD
02-13-2014, 4:03 AM
While all of the 2A arguments are par for the course. For me I see it more than just that. These laws aren't created with public safety in mind. These laws are created because the political establishment in California morally objects to it's citizens owning firearms.

The science shows these laws will have little to no effect on crime. They will quote statistics that say X% of crimes involve a > 10 round magazine. But if > 10 round magazine is the standard capacity in certain guns then it stands to reason they would be present in crimes committed with those guns(say glocks for instance).

The real question isn't if a gun with a magazine > 10 rounds is present in a shooting. The real question is, was more than 10 rounds fired in violent shootings. Because if less than 10 rounds were fired then the magazine capacity is irrelevant. The criminal could have a 5K round magazine but if they fired just one round, restricting the magazine capacity to 10 won't change the outcome of the shooting.

If you actually read the study(from 1994 I believe) they like to quote saying they should restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds, you'll see that ~96% of the shootings in that study were committed with less than 10 rounds fired.

Even if every magazine in the country were made to hold no more than 10 rounds we would be certain to not change the outcome in ~96% of all shootings. The remaining 4% may include multiple shooters and multiple guns but we don't know.

A more rationale law would be to make it a crime for EVERY bullet fired in the commission of a violent crime. Fire one shot that's an extra year...2 shots is 2 year and so forth. That would provide a known deterrent effect and might actually be able to impact the 96% of shootings that fire less than 10 rounds.

But what that law wouldn't do is deter law abiding citizens from owning firearms. The reality is all of these laws are designed by politicians who simply morally object to any of their citizens owning firearms. They are targeted broadly because the intent isn't to affect crime it's to deter an activity that those politicians morally object to.

The irony is the supreme court has ruled on said behavior of government. > 10 years ago in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Justice OConner had this to say about the practice in her concurring opinion.

A law branding one class of persons as criminal based solely on the State’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.

If you look up the case you'll see the delicious irony of that decision in CA. Is this a 2A issue? Sure but it's also very much an equal protection violation created by politicians who use their moral beliefs to try to create criminals out of the people whose behavior they object to.

solanoslough
02-13-2014, 7:14 AM
Dangerous and Unusual Misdirection: A Look at the Common Law Tradition of Prohibiting Going Armed with Dangerous and Unusual Weapons to the Terror of the People, as Cited in District of Columbia versus Heller
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1859395

I submitted this with the Court. This is a paper that shows dangerous and unusual refers to a class of conduct with a weapons and armor rather than a way to describe a weapon.

This is further supported by the Amicus brief filed by SAF in Emody's case in 2011.

http://hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/Embody-SAF-CGF-Amicus-2011-12-05.pdf

I"m just throwing that out for edification.

You can have 30 round magazines, but if the magazine causes alarm the carrier is no longer protected by the second Amendment.

prometa
02-13-2014, 10:15 AM
The key to winning this case will be proving that LCMs (standard capacity magazines) are typically used by law abiding citizens for self-defense, and indeed that they are less able to defend themselves without them. I do think this can be done statistically and with experts, as well as with obvious logical arguments.

I disagree. But for a few lone cases, judges have been hesitant to rule based on the wording of Heller, instead presuming it creates some sort of scrutiny-based testing and then deciding that since Heller didn't spell out its own, the particular judge gets to make that part up.

The issue then, becomes the burden level of the law and how closely tied the law is to some state interest. Prove the burden is high and the benefit low to win. (At least at this level).

Eventually, SCOTUS will weigh again, hopefully with more clarity, but the likelihood of that future case affecting this one at this time is low.

While all of the 2A arguments are par for the course. For me I see it more than just that. These laws aren't created with public safety in mind. These laws are created because the political establishment in California morally objects to it's citizens owning firearms.

The science shows these laws will have little to no effect on crime. They will quote statistics that say X% of crimes involve a > 10 round magazine. But if > 10 round magazine is the standard capacity in certain guns then it stands to reason they would be present in crimes committed with those guns(say glocks for instance).

The real question isn't if a gun with a magazine > 10 rounds is present in a shooting. The real question is, was more than 10 rounds fired in violent shootings. Because if less than 10 rounds were fired then the magazine capacity is irrelevant. The criminal could have a 5K round magazine but if they fired just one round, restricting the magazine capacity to 10 won't change the outcome of the shooting.

If you actually read the study(from 1994 I believe) they like to quote saying they should restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds, you'll see that ~96% of the shootings in that study were committed with less than 10 rounds fired.


This is closer to the style of argument I think would be more persuasive at the district level. Show the law is nothing more than an irrational fear-based response that has no rational connection to any public safety issue.


If you look up the case you'll see the delicious irony of that decision in CA. Is this a 2A issue? Sure but it's also very much an equal protection violation created by politicians who use their moral beliefs to try to create criminals out of the people whose behavior they object to.

What is the equal protection violation here? Creating a privileged class of LEOs? While I would love a judge to say that LEOs cannot be subject to looser restrictions than everyday citizens, I don't see that as a likely possibility anytime soon, even though I agree that the constitutional principle doesn't allow restrictions on fundamental rights except for members of some profession.

In the case you cited, Texas' laws created two classes of "ordinary" citizens.

Tincon
02-13-2014, 12:23 PM
I disagree. But for a few lone cases, judges have been hesitant to rule based on the wording of Heller, instead presuming it creates some sort of scrutiny-based testing and then deciding that since Heller didn't spell out its own, the particular judge gets to make that part up.

The issue then, becomes the burden level of the law and how closely tied the law is to some state interest. Prove the burden is high and the benefit low to win. (At least at this level).

Eventually, SCOTUS will weigh again, hopefully with more clarity, but the likelihood of that future case affecting this one at this time is low.


Pick up an (internet) newspaper. There will be some good news for you. ;)

prometa
02-13-2014, 2:40 PM
Pick up an (internet) newspaper. There will be some good news for you. ;)

Yep, here I am catching up on one thread while big news is breaking out elsewhere!

CrazyPhuD
02-13-2014, 7:00 PM
One other argument in the 'Designed Capacity' magazines versus 'Restricted Capacity' magazines.

Firearms are precision operating machines. They are engineered extensively and subjected to a battery of manufacturing tests during development. They are designed around a specific magazine capacity and are tested most thoroughly around said capacity. Anyone who's ever engineered something knows that the more you test something the less likely it will be to fail when you use it for real.

Restricted capacity magazines are most often developed for compliance reasons and aren't considered from the start. They are afterthoughts from a design and testing point of view. Additionally the vast majority of magazines in use in this country will be for the designed capacity. Many more people will be 'testing' the standard capacity magazines in real life. This will increase the chance of any defect in design or manufacturing will be detected before someone needs to use the product in earnest.

With the significantly lower number of 'restricted' capacity magazine users there's less real world 'testing' and a greater chance of a defect in the restricted magazine going undetected until a critical point.

In short, because restricted capacity magazines aren't generally designed with the gun and aren't going to be tested a thoroughly as the designed capacity it is likely that a gun with a restricted capacity magazine will be less reliable than one using the designed capacity.

This increases the chance of a critical failure when you need to use your firearm the most. Regardless of how many shots you need to use to deal with the threat.

Consider a restricted capacity magazine that is steel for the top half and then uses a plastic bottom half of the magazine to both restrict the capacity and yet still fit into the existing magazine well. Is the plastic bottom as durable as the steel top? How about during extreme cold in the wilderness? Will the plastic become too brittle when the temperatures drop, crack and render the magazine useless?

Self defense isn't just about how many shots you need to use, it's also about what a firearm is designed and tested to use. The designed capacity will be the most reliable. Something other than the designed capacity will be less reliable. Making the firearm less reliable will impact ability of a person to use it in self defense. When they can't demonstrate a significant impact on crime, how can they demand to change after the fact what magazines will be used in an existing gun?

CMonfort
02-13-2014, 11:45 PM
The Court issued an order today requested supplemental briefing on the Peruta ruling. The supplemental briefs are not to exceed 5 pages and are due Monday.

-Clint

Librarian
02-14-2014, 12:50 AM
The Court issued an order today requested supplemental briefing on the Peruta ruling. The supplemental briefs are not to exceed 5 pages and are due Monday.

-Clint

Interesting. What information does the Court ask for in the order?

CMonfort
02-14-2014, 12:53 AM
Interesting. What information does the Court ask for in the order?

Just the impact of the ruling on this case. I'll post the brief after we file it.

mymonkeyman
02-14-2014, 1:45 AM
The Court issued an order today requested supplemental briefing on the Peruta ruling. The supplemental briefs are not to exceed 5 pages and are due Monday.

-Clint

Wow. Sorry your win looks like you're losing a weekend. I guess it's good to have a judge that's on top of things, but too bad that involves turning out a brief in less than 4 days, not to mention submitting a brief at noon on a Monday which is a Federal holiday to boot.

rigid650
02-14-2014, 10:43 PM
redacted

fizux
02-15-2014, 12:25 AM
order attached, in case anyone cares.

very sparse:


Today, our court of appeals filed a decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego, an action involving a Second Amendment claim. Both sides are hereby ORDERED TO SUBMIT A FIVEPAGE BRIEF on the impact of Peruta, if any, on this action by NOON ON FEBRUARY 17.



I guess that is the down side to electronic filing-- one can't just paper file the next business day, and CC § 11 becomes largely worthless.

CMonfort
02-17-2014, 4:36 PM
On Thursday, the Northern District ordered supplemental briefing re: the impact of the NRA's victory in Peruta v. San Diego on this case. The briefs discussing the 132 page opinion were not to exceed 5 pages and were due at noon today.

The brief filed by the City and County of San Francisco can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Defendants-Supplemental-Brief-Recent-Peruta-Decision.pdf

The brief filed by our office on behalf of the Plaintiffs can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Conformed-Plaintiffs-Supplemental-Briefing-re-Peruta-v-County-of-San-Diego.pdf

The declaration of Margaret Leidy filed in support of Plaintiffs' brief can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-M-Leidy-In-Support-of-Plaintiffs_-Supplemental-Brief-re-Peruta-v-County-of-San-Diego.pdf


-Clint

SJ-Chris
02-17-2014, 4:43 PM
On Thursday, the Northern District ordered supplemental briefing re: the impact of the NRA's victory in Peruta v. San Diego on this case. The briefs discussing the 132 page opinion were not to exceed 5 pages and were due at noon today.

The brief filed by the City and County of San Francisco can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Defendants-Supplemental-Brief-Recent-Peruta-Decision.pdf

The brief filed by our office on behalf of the Plaintiffs can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Defendants-Supplemental-Brief-Recent-Peruta-Decision.pdf

The declaration of Margaret Leidy filed in support of Plaintiffs' brief can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-M-Leidy-In-Support-of-Plaintiffs_-Supplemental-Brief-re-Peruta-v-County-of-San-Diego.pdf


-Clint

For someone who is not a lawyer, can you please summarize what it all means? Thanks!

CMonfort
02-17-2014, 4:49 PM
For someone who is not a lawyer, can you please summarize what it all means? Thanks!

Basically the court is currently evaluating Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to stop the magazine law from being enforced, but before it does so, the Court wants to hear from the parties whether the new precedent created by Peruta has any impact on how the court should rule in this case.

I don't have time to properly summarize the briefs, but they are pretty readable and sum up the impact of the Peruta decision pretty succinctly.

Maltese Falcon
02-17-2014, 4:54 PM
On Thursday, the Northern District ordered supplemental briefing re: the impact of the NRA's victory in Peruta v. San Diego on this case. The briefs discussing the 132 page opinion were not to exceed 5 pages and were due at noon today.

The brief filed by the City and County of San Francisco can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Defendants-Supplemental-Brief-Recent-Peruta-Decision.pdf

The brief filed by our office on behalf of the Plaintiffs can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Defendants-Supplemental-Brief-Recent-Peruta-Decision.pdf

The declaration of Margaret Leidy filed in support of Plaintiffs' brief can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-M-Leidy-In-Support-of-Plaintiffs_-Supplemental-Brief-re-Peruta-v-County-of-San-Diego.pdf


-Clint

Mr. Monfort --

Brief 1 and 2 are the same.

-MF

.

moleculo
02-17-2014, 4:55 PM
On Thursday, the Northern District ordered supplemental briefing re: the impact of the NRA's victory in Peruta v. San Diego on this case. The briefs discussing the 132 page opinion were not to exceed 5 pages and were due at noon today.

The brief filed by the City and County of San Francisco can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Defendants-Supplemental-Brief-Recent-Peruta-Decision.pdf

The brief filed by our office on behalf of the Plaintiffs can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Defendants-Supplemental-Brief-Recent-Peruta-Decision.pdf

The declaration of Margaret Leidy filed in support of Plaintiffs' brief can be viewed here:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Conformed-Declaration-of-M-Leidy-In-Support-of-Plaintiffs_-Supplemental-Brief-re-Peruta-v-County-of-San-Diego.pdf


-Clint

The link for M&A brief is bad - it's currently pointing to SF's brief.

x90
02-17-2014, 5:01 PM
Here's the correct link:

SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Conformed-Plaintiffs-Supplemental-Briefing-re-Peruta-v-County-of-San-Diego (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Conformed-Plaintiffs-Supplemental-Briefing-re-Peruta-v-County-of-San-Diego.pdf)

All the documents: SFVPOA v. San Francisco (http://michellawyers.com/sfvpoa-v-san-francisco/)

CMonfort, excellent work on this brief!

SonofWWIIDI
02-17-2014, 5:02 PM
Lets hope we get a ruling in our favor.

Agree, and hopefully in this century.

CMonfort
02-17-2014, 5:05 PM
The link for M&A brief is bad - it's currently pointing to SF's brief.

Sorry about that, here it is and I corrected it in my initial post as well:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Conformed-Plaintiffs-Supplemental-Briefing-re-Peruta-v-County-of-San-Diego.pdf

UberPatriot
02-17-2014, 5:35 PM
Sorry about that, here it is and I corrected it in my initial post as well:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v-San-Francisco_Conformed-Plaintiffs-Supplemental-Briefing-re-Peruta-v-County-of-San-Diego.pdf

Nice, Good job.

jrr
02-17-2014, 5:48 PM
Interesting read. I wonder, does this have any effect on things if in fact Peruta gets stayed? Fishing for a reason to stay this case perhaps?

The Defendant's brief is pretty telling. They can't say much except to jam in an argument that since Peruta looks at home vs public self defense as essentially equal, there shouldn't be any reason that strict scrutiny has to apply simply because its in the home. Talk about making lemonade out of lemons. lol.

Otherwise, its the same junk about LCMs not being useful for self defense based on the alleged lack of documented instances where homeowners used more than ten rounds to ward off an attack. Which of course ignores that a. most successful self defense use of a firearm involves firing no rounds, but instead preventing an attack and b. the Plaintiff's argument that regardless of whether ten rounds are fired or not, LCM are overwhelmingly the most common type of magazine used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Hopefully the courts can be persuaded to look past the intellectual dishonesty and hand-waving of the Defendant's briefs.

Noble Cause
02-17-2014, 6:13 PM
Interesting read. I wonder, does this have any effect on things if in fact Peruta gets stayed? Fishing for a reason to stay this case perhaps?

The Defendant's brief is pretty telling. They can't say much except to jam in an argument that since Peruta looks at home vs public self defense as essentially equal, there shouldn't be any reason that strict scrutiny has to apply simply because its in the home. Talk about making lemonade out of lemons. lol.

Otherwise, its the same junk about LCMs not being useful for self defense based on the alleged lack of documented instances where homeowners used more than ten rounds to ward off an attack. Which of course ignores that a. most successful self defense use of a firearm involves firing no rounds, but instead preventing an attack and b. the Plaintiff's argument that regardless of whether ten rounds are fired or not, LCM are overwhelmingly the most common type of magazine used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Hopefully the courts can be persuaded to look past the intellectual dishonesty and hand-waving of the Defendant's briefs.

Not to mention the law has reduced the available pool of so called
"high capacity" magazines for 14 years....another little factoid
the other side fails to acknowledge, in their intellectual dishonesty.

Many Californians only have neutered magazines of 10 rounds now,
so of course when they defend themselves, "they did not use a
high-capacity magazine."

They created a "Catch 22". :mad:


Noble

CCWFacts
02-17-2014, 6:21 PM
I don't have time to properly summarize the briefs, but they are pretty readable and sum up the impact of the Peruta decision pretty succinctly.

They're both very readable. Our side says that a complete ban on an arm in common use, inside or outside the home, is not acceptable under Peruta. Their side says that banning LCMs is a burden, but not a ban on the right, and therefore LCMs can be banned, because the ban is an unimportant burden but has a significant benefit in stopping mass murders and cop killers.

Anyone who has spent some time trying to load 10-round Glock magazines knows that they are a significant burden to maintaining sanity!

What gets me about SF's arguments are how dishonest they are. If they can uphold a ban on 10 rounds, they will next go for 7 rounds, like New York. If that's ok, then they will say "revolvers only", and then Tasers only, and then why not limit it to pepper spray, or a rape whistle? To them, no burden will ever be "significant" because they hate the idea of us loathsome American citizens asserting our right to exist and defend our presence in North America.

mshill
02-17-2014, 7:06 PM
This is the very last line of the city's response.

It is only excess magazine capacity, unnecessary for self-defense but deadly in the hands of mass shooters, cop killers, and other criminals, that San Francisco’s law affects. Nothing in Peruta casts doubt on the validity of San Francisco’s law.


If I were the judge and someone closed with this I would be inclined to ask them if they are asking the criminals to turn in their magazines "with excess capacity"

CG of MP
02-17-2014, 7:24 PM
... Of course one could bring up the errata language in Heller that says the REASON for the second amendment is to keep government in check... Then one could ask if this is a BURDEN on the right or if it is indeed a defacto abridgement of it.

Also the idea that somehow this isn't much of a burden on the right could be argued the other direction as well.... If limiting mags is not a burden as it takes away little functionality, then the inverse must also be true... adding a few rounds isn't going to make much difference either. San Fran can't have it one way and not the other.

Drivedabizness
02-17-2014, 8:54 PM
The key to winning this case will be proving that LCMs (standard capacity magazines) are typically used by law abiding citizens for self-defense, and indeed that they are less able to defend themselves without them. I do think this can be done statistically and with experts, as well as with obvious logical arguments.

The "special danger" argument is a complete misinterpretation of the Heller opinion. It is apparently a reference to weapons described by the Heller court as "dangerous and unusual." That term has a meaning made very clear in Heller: weapons which would alarm the public if carried openly. There is no way an LCM fits this definition.

Tincon - do criminals limit themselves to less-than-standard capacity mags? :) And lets not give excessive credence to might be alarmed/offended.

Tincon
02-17-2014, 9:37 PM
Tincon - do criminals limit themselves to less-than-standard capacity mags? :) And lets not give excessive credence to might be alarmed/offended.

This is a great logical argument, and a terrible legal argument. It is unhelpful to argue that LCMs are commonly used by criminals.

fizux
02-17-2014, 10:04 PM
This is a great logical argument, and a terrible legal argument. It is unhelpful to argue that LCMs are commonly used by criminals.
I does sorta bear upon the lack of public safety benefit of the ban.

The Peruta opinion doesn't appear to rely upon using criminal misuse as part of some contrived interest balancing test.

Tincon
02-17-2014, 10:34 PM
I does sorta bear upon the lack of public safety benefit of the ban.

The Peruta opinion doesn't appear to rely upon using criminal misuse as part of some contrived interest balancing test.

No, but this judge certainly seems interested in such a test. Time will tell how Peruta translates into cases on categorical bans. But for now, we need injunctive relief at the district court level if at all possible. This will have a real effect on people in those cities.

Ceemack
02-18-2014, 6:43 AM
This is the very last line of the city's response.


If I were the judge and someone closed with this I would be inclined to ask them if they are asking the criminals to turn in their magazines "with excess capacity"
Actually, I'd want to know if the city was having their police officers turn in all their "excess capacity" magazines, since they're unnecessary for self-defense and all.

lhecker51
02-18-2014, 9:31 AM
....If I live there I will just ignore the law.

Exactly! I refuse to pay the "poll tax" of countless permit fees in order to carry. As a law abiding disabled combat vet retiree on a LIMITED income, I should not have to choose between critical necessities and self defense. I have lived a long life and have no more patience waiting for permission that may either never come or be too costly.

Over the years I have seen the debates rage over CCW here in these forums and I can tell you that I pay no attention to laws that infringe on my rights. As far as I am concerned, common sense settled that debate long ago when I reached the age of majority with full rights.

I suspect that many members that have applied for a CCW and were denied in the past and after the banning of UOC, carry concealed anyway.

lhecker51
02-18-2014, 9:42 AM
I'm curious if this is going to be one of those lawsuits that drags on for years. How does the law effect the citizens in the meantime if so?

The citizens can choose to be vulnerable sheep or they can become the bandit sheepdog. Their choice. Bad laws turn good people into instant criminals.

CMonfort
02-18-2014, 9:50 AM
Actually, I'd want to know if the city was having their police officers turn in all their "excess capacity" magazines, since they're unnecessary for self-defense and all.

In San Francisco, officers are permitted to keep their duty magazines at home, but their personally owned magazines are not exempt.

In Sunnyvale, the issue is more interesting. Law enforcement officers are only exempt under a plain reading of the ordinance while acting in the course and scope of their official duties. This language notwithstanding, the City Attorney issued a memorandum interpreting the ordinance to exempt not only duty magazines possessed while off duty at home, but also the officers' personally owned magazines. This is an implausible reading of the law that was no doubt done to appease law enforcement and avoid backlash from officers (who want standard capacity magazines the at home the same way other residents do).

Our office directed the court's attention to this memorandum in the MPI Reply brief, as the City has thus acknowledged the suitability of the magazines for in-home self-defense and other off duty uses. So much so that the City went out of its way to incorrectly interpret the ordinance just to ensure that off duty officers can possess even personally owned non-duty magazines for these purposes.

prometa
02-18-2014, 10:42 AM
The city has conceded that limiting magazine capacity to 10 burdens 2nd amendment rights? If so then:

If they can uphold a ban on 10 rounds, they will next go for 7 rounds, like New York.

Or, put another way, how can the city possibility provide evidence 10 rounds has been narrowly tailored to meet government interest? Why not 9 or 12 or 7 or 3? I find the argument in the Plaintiff's supp. brief that the (a) the city has the burden of proof and (b) has not provided any evidence the most compelling part of the case. Given the irreparable harm to citizens of SF done if the law is allowed to come into force, I am optimistic the court will grant the preliminary injunction.

I am surprised, though, that the Plaintiff's brief didn't point out that the ruling in Peruta explicitly reinforces that Heller's "longstanding" meant hundreds of years and not the last 10 or 20 or 50. That would completely neuter the city's argument that the ban on LCMs is just the type of longstanding restriction that Heller allowed to remain in force.

CMonfort
02-18-2014, 11:01 AM
The City never argued that LCM restrictions were longstanding and thus presumptively lawful. The MPI (Opening and Reply) briefs also go into great detail into just how rare these restrictions are, along with the arms that the 2A provides protections for.

The city has conceded that limiting magazine capacity to 10 burdens 2nd amendment rights? If so then:

I am surprised, though, that the Plaintiff's brief didn't point out that the ruling in Peruta explicitly reinforces that Heller's "longstanding" meant hundreds of years and not the last 10 or 20 or 50. That would completely neuter the city's argument that the ban on LCMs is just the type of longstanding restriction that Heller allowed to remain in force.

prometa
02-18-2014, 11:24 AM
The City never argued that LCM restrictions were longstanding and thus presumptively lawful. The MPI (Opening and Reply) briefs also go into great detail into just how rare these restrictions are, along with the arms that the 2A provides protections for.

Peruta rebukes any suggestion that reasonable gun controls are unconstitutional. Heller admonished that longstanding firearms regulations would remain constitutional despite its invalidation of the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, 554 U.S. at 626-27, and Peruta emphasizes that “[n]or should anything in this opinion be taken to cast doubt on the validity of measures designed to make the carrying of firearms for self-defense as safe as possible, both to the carrier and the community.” Slip op. at 76. San Francisco’s large-capacity magazine ban is exactly such a measure. Armed self-defense, with guns equipped with standard magazines, remains lawful under San Francisco’s law. It is only excess magazine capacity, unnecessary for self-defense but deadly in the hands of mass shooters, cop killers, and other criminals, that San Francisco’s law affects. Nothing in Peruta casts doubt on the validity of San Francisco’s law.

I was assuming the reference to Heller at the end of the brief implies just that type of argument, though on a second reading it doesn't explicitly state that. I suppose the reference is superfluous since the paragraph concludes that Peruta doesn't cast doubt, not Heller.

CMonfort
02-18-2014, 11:31 AM
I was assuming the reference to Heller at the end of the brief implies just that type of argument, though on a second reading it doesn't explicitly state that. I suppose the reference is actually superfluous since the paragraph concludes that Peruta doesn't cast doubt, not Heller.

Right, and also note that this brief was filed at the same filling deadline our office was up against. We didn't have an opportunity to review this supplemental brief and then write our supplemental brief. Both were due at noon yesterday, just 1.5 business days after the 132 page Peruta Opinion came down. The City never raised the argument the longstanding issue in the actual MPI briefing. Should the court somehow go sideways on that issue despite the evidence presented as to how rare, uncommon, and knew such laws are, we will be sure to address it at that time.

Thanks for the inquiry and feedback.

-Clint

Ceemack
02-18-2014, 11:34 AM
In San Francisco, officers are permitted to keep their duty magazines at home, but their personally owned magazines are not exempt.

In Sunnyvale, the issue is more interesting. Law enforcement officers are only exempt under a plain reading of the ordinance while acting in the course and scope of their official duties. This language notwithstanding, the City Attorney issued a memorandum interpreting the ordinance to exempt not only duty magazines possessed while off duty at home, but also the officers' personally owned magazines. This is an implausible reading of the law that was no doubt done to appease law enforcement and avoid backlash from officers (who want standard capacity magazines the at home the same way other residents do).

Our office directed the court's attention to this memorandum in the MPI Reply brief, as the City has thus acknowledged the suitability of the magazines for in-home self-defense and other off duty uses. So much so that the City went out of its way to incorrectly interpret the ordinance just to ensure that off duty officers can possess even personally owned non-duty magazines for these purposes.
Sorry, Counselor, but I think you missed my point. I'm talking about magazines used while on duty.

LEOs carry sidearms to defend themselves in the performance of their duties. They routinely carry standard-capacity (i.e., more than 10 rounds) magazines.

If anything over 10 rounds is merely "excess capacity" for self-defense purposes, as claimed in the defendants' brief, why are LEOs in the city and county of San Francisco still carrying standard-capacity magazines while on duty? Why aren't they using 10-round magazines?

CMonfort
02-18-2014, 12:02 PM
I understand, I was also just sharing that interesting bit of information.

The short answer to your question is that SF thinks LEOs have special/heightened capacity needs while on duty, above that of the average law-abiding citizens. The MPI briefs and a great weight of evidence including expert testimony from a law enforcement official and firearms historian, and self-defense expert Massad Ayoob address this falsehood.

Untamed1972
02-18-2014, 12:30 PM
This is the very last line of the city's response.


If I were the judge and someone closed with this I would be inclined to ask them if they are asking the criminals to turn in their magazines "with excess capacity"

Yea....look at the rest of the paragraph though too....it caught my attention:

San Francisco’s large-capacity magazine ban is exactly such a measure.
Armed self-defense, with guns equipped with standard magazines, remains lawful under San
Francisco’s law. It is only excess magazine capacity, unnecessary for self-defense but deadly in the
hands of mass shooters, cop killers, and other criminals, that San Francisco’s law affects. Nothing in
Peruta casts doubt on the validity of San Francisco’s law.

They are now trying to claim that 10rd mags are STANDARD, and anything above that is excess. Wouldn't standard be at least the mag the gun was designed with from the factory?

The whole notion of "standard vs. excess" is ridiculous. Placing any legal limit on it is entirely arbitrary.

If they are "unnecessary for self-defense" then the police shouldn't need them either right?

CMonfort
02-18-2014, 12:40 PM
QUOTE=Untamed1972;13468471]Yea....look at the rest of the paragraph though too....it caught my attention:



They are now trying to claim that 10rd mags are STANDARD, and anything above that is excess. Wouldn't standard be at least the mag the gun was designed with from the factory?

The whole notion of "standard vs. excess" is ridiculous. Placing any legal limit on it is entirely arbitrary.[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is the game they play. Here are some relevant portions from the Opening and Reply briefs addressing this:

The City pejoratively refers to the feeding devices it bans as “large-capacity magazines.”
Proponents of standard-capacity firearm and magazine bans have even started referring to them as
“mega-magazines.” Bill Analysis, S. 396, 2013-2014 Reg. Sess., at 5 (Cal. 2013). As used by
advocates of such bans, these are terms of opprobrium, applied for public relations purposes to
help garner support for legislative proposals. In a similar attempt to vilify these common
magazines, the City adopted a finding describing them as “typically associated with machine guns
or semi-automatic assault weapons,” S.F., Cal., Police Code § 619(a)(4), despite their being
standard equipment for tens of millions of handguns.
The standard magazine for a given firearm is one that was originally designed for use with
that firearm, regardless of its capacity. Helsley Decl. ¶ 3.


I. GOVERNMENT-INVENTED DESCRIPTIONS OF MAGAZINES AS "LARGE CAPACITY" ARE
RARE AND Do NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT SUCH MAGAZINES ARE STANDARD

Proponents of bans on certain magazines often refer to them as "large capacity" or
"mega magazines," or they describe them as typically associated with military arms. Mot. 5. They
do so with full knowledge (or remarkable ignorance) that magazines over ten rounds are standard
equipment for millions of handguns. The City does not dispute this, but nonetheless claims that
only magazines under ten rounds are "standard capacity," while offering no valid support. Opp'n
1. It ignores testimony from expert firearms historian Steven Helsley explaining that a firearm's
standard magazine capacity is that which it was intended to have. Helsley Decl. 3. And it ignores
that magazines over ten rounds are standard for many of the most popular handgun models
available. Mot. 4, 9, 13. In similar fashion, the City describes restrictions on magazines over ten
rounds as common. Opp'n 3. But of the laws the City cites, one state had set the limit at seven
rounds, just four set it at ten rounds, and two states have a fifteen-round maximum while
forty-three states have no such classification. Ninety percent of states are not in line with the City.


And the City identifies but five municipalities - out of more than 19, 000 with magazine limitations varying from ten to seventeen rounds. It is these laws, not the magazines, that are rare. In sum, rather than acknowledging that its ban covers many standard magazines, the City attempts to sway this court by unilaterally redefining the word "standard." The obvious hope is that the Court will adopt the City's false claim that magazines holding more than ten rounds are
not standard, but unusual, military-type equipment owned by only fringe members of society. But
despite its unsupported claims, these magazines are the standard for millions of common firearms.

All filings to date in the case are available here:

http://michellawyers.com/sfvpoa-v-san-francisco/

Untamed1972
02-18-2014, 1:05 PM
Yes, this is the game they play. Here are some relevant portions from the Opening and Reply briefs addressing this:

Good read...I will admit I haven't keep up on reading all of the filings for all of the current cases.

Ceemack
02-18-2014, 1:18 PM
I understand, I was also just sharing that interesting bit of information.

The short answer to your question is that SF thinks LEOs have special/heightened capacity needs while on duty, above that of the average law-abiding citizens. The MPI briefs and a great weight of evidence including expert testimony from a law enforcement official and firearms historian, and self-defense expert Massad Ayoob address this falsehood.
I'm sure that's what SF would argue. But to me it seems more like they're putting a greater value on a LEO's life than an ordinary civilian...who has no backup readily available.

x90
02-18-2014, 1:45 PM
What date is the ordinance scheduled to take effect? I saw an April date mentioned earlier in this thread, but it wasn't clear whether this includes the delay the city had agreed to.

CMonfort
02-18-2014, 2:22 PM
April 7, 2014 (that includes the 30-day stay of enforcement).

CMonfort
02-19-2014, 3:31 PM
Earlier today, the Court denied (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Order-Denying-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf) Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

In light of the errors in the Court's ruling, Plaintiffs plan to appeal the Motion and seek Urgent/Emergency relief from the 9th Circuit seeking a temporary stay of enforcement (before the ordinance takes effect) while the parties brief, and the Ninth Circuit considers, the merits of the MPI appeal.

Note that the Sunnyvale (San Jose) court is not bound by this opinion.
A ruling on the MPI in that case is expected sometime next week.

I will post more information as it becomes available.

-Clint

Tincon
02-19-2014, 3:49 PM
Ugh. "The bottom line on history is that there is no proof that multi-bullet magazines for firearms were in use at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment."

Not only is that a facile and irrelevant point, it is factually incorrect. A particularly good example is the Belton Flintlock, a gun that not only existed at the time of Ratification, it was well known to the founding fathers. Josph Belton, the inventor of the gun, had offered it to the Continental Congress in 1777, and a number of examples were commissioned and tested. Harold L. Peterson (2000). Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. Courier Dover Publications. pp. 217–218. The gun fired up to 20 shots in a single magazine.

Before that you had the "Puckle Gun," which held 11 charges. Willbanks, James H (2004). Machine Guns: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. ABC-CLIO. p. 154. These were purchased and deployed by the British military.

But of course none of that should matter, because the Second Amendment is about the right to self-defense. It protects the right of the People to have effective tools for self-defense. It no less protects modern firearms than a law which protected the right to medical care enacted in the 18th century would protect the right to antibiotics or other treatments which did not exist at the time.

Not to mention the madness of saying there is no substantial burden because those acting in self-defense in a life-threatenting situation can simply reload, while suggesting that mass shooters targeting helpless victims are somehow not similarly capable.

thayne
02-19-2014, 3:49 PM
Earlier today, the Court denied (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Order-Denying-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf) Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

In light of the errors in the Court's ruling, Plaintiffs plan to appeal the Motion and seek Urgent/Emergency relief from the 9th Circuit seeking a temporary stay of enforcement (before the ordinance takes effect) while the parties brief, and the Ninth Circuit considers, the merits of the MPI appeal.

Note that the Sunnyvale (San Jose) court is not bound by this opinion.
A ruling on the MPI in that case is expected sometime next week.

I will post more information as it becomes available.

-Clint

Hopefully the 9th gets this one right too!

thayne
02-19-2014, 3:50 PM
Ugh. "The bottom line on history is that there is no proof that multi-bullet magazines for firearms were in use at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment."


That's like saying only muskets are protected. Or only words written in paper in book's are protected

Tincon
02-19-2014, 3:55 PM
Just a note: As disgusting as this ruling is, the case was designed to be appealed, and we have not lost yet.

jrr
02-19-2014, 3:57 PM
Another decision that reflects the triumph of emotion over logic. Probably what we should expect out of a SF judge.

And, as above, the point about the historical record of "high capacity" magazines is truly facile. The "historical analysis" is nothing so specific. In fact, Heller completely forecloses the notion that the historical analysis applies to the actual technology in question. If it did, then Mr. Heller's revolver certainly wouldn't have been a protected arm as it didn't exist at the time of the Framing.

Historical analysis applies to frame the argument broadly, not to decide the specific issues. Historical analysis would show that arms in common use were protected. Whether there is a historical reference to magazines with greater than ten round capacity specifically discussed is as relevant as whether there are post-revolutionary war era cases discussing how licenses for television broadcasters are distributed is to a First Amendment case.

blech.

Noble Cause
02-19-2014, 4:16 PM
Earlier today, the Court denied (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Order-Denying-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf) Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

In light of the errors in the Court's ruling, Plaintiffs plan to appeal the Motion and seek Urgent/Emergency relief from the 9th Circuit seeking a temporary stay of enforcement (before the ordinance takes effect) while the parties brief, and the Ninth Circuit considers, the merits of the MPI appeal.

Note that the Sunnyvale (San Jose) court is not bound by this opinion.
A ruling on the MPI in that case is expected sometime next week.

I will post more information as it becomes available.

-Clint

Hard to believe this is the same judge smart enough to learn the
programming language Java just to fully understand a case.

I guess when it comes to the Second Amendment, irrational emotions
overwhelm logical cognitive abilities.... < sigh >



It is possible, of course, to use a magazine holding more than ten rounds for self-defense.
8 But, again, we are not dealing with a total ban on all magazines. Instead, we are dealing with a
9 total ban only on magazines holding more than ten rounds. Magazines holding up to ten rounds
10 are perfectly legal under the ordinance. The record shows that the average number of shots fired
11 in self-defense is 2.2 rounds (Allen Decl. ¶ 7). The record further shows that the number of
12 instances in which more than ten rounds have been fired in self-defense (in our entire country)
13 by civilians is exceedingly rare (Ayoob Decl. ¶¶ 4–17). Moreover, it would be perfectly lawful
14 under the San Francisco ordinance to carry or keep two magazines, each holding ten rounds, for
15 a total of twenty rounds — even more if more magazines are desired. If and when the first
16 magazine ran out, the self-defender could eject it and insert a backup. The scenario described by
17 counsel for plaintiffs in which an assailant keeps coming, though riddled with bullets, even
18 through the heart, so that more than ten shots are needed, even if fully credited, is nonetheless
19 answered by the ability of the self-defender to have two or more magazines. The same is true of
20 the scenario in which there are multiple assailants.
21 In sum, the San Francisco ordinance does not “destroy” the right to self-defense; it
22 “merely burdens” it. Peruta, slip op. at 48, 50, 52, 56, 60–61. In turn, the degree of scrutiny
23 required is less severe. This order will apply the so-called intermediate scrutiny, but will also
24 find below that even under any higher scrutiny, the San Francisco ordinance is constitution


There you have it folks, the next Standard for magazine capacity:

2.2 rounds.

Because apparently that's all that's needed. Civilians caught with high capacity
2.3 capacity assault magazines Will face capital punishment, since it's clear
they where intent on nefarious purposes, since the extra capacity is never
Needed for self-defense. :facepalm:

Reading these legal documents of distorted logic makes my brain physically hurt.


Noble

Noble Cause
02-19-2014, 4:40 PM
Ugh. "The bottom line on history is that there is no proof that multi-bullet magazines for firearms were in use at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment."

Not only is that a facile and irrelevant point, it is factually incorrect. A particularly good example is the Belton Flintlock, a gun that not only existed at the time of Ratification, it was well known to the founding fathers. Josph Belton, the inventor of the gun, had offered it to the Continental Congress in 1777, and a number of examples were commissioned and tested. Harold L. Peterson (2000). Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. Courier Dover Publications. pp. 217–218. The gun fired up to 20 shots in a single magazine.

Before that you had the "Puckle Gun," which held 11 charges. Willbanks, James H (2004). Machine Guns: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. ABC-CLIO. p. 154. These were purchased and deployed by the British military.

But of course none of that should matter, because the Second Amendment is about the right to self-defense. It protects the right of the People to have effective tools for self-defense. It no less protects modern firearms than a law which protected the right to medical care enacted in the 18th century would protect the right to antibiotics or other treatments which did not exist at the time.

Not to mention the madness of saying there is no substantial burden because those acting in self-defense in a life-threatenting situation can simply reload, while suggesting that mass shooters targeting helpless victims are somehow not similarly capable.

Exactly.

I also like to throw in the Girandoni Air Rifle when these issues come up,
the same rifle used to Great effect in the Louis and Clark expedition:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Girandoni_Air_Rifle.jpg/320px-Girandoni_Air_Rifle.jpg

Repeating rifle with magazine capacities of 22 (capable of upto 30).46 caliber balls.
The Girandoni air rifle was also used in the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815.


Noble

RobertMW
02-19-2014, 4:46 PM
Hard to believe this is the same judge smart enough to learn the
programming language Java just to fully understand a case.

I guess when it comes to the Second Amendment, irrational emotions
overwhelm logical cognitive abilities.... < sigh >




There you have it folks, the next Standard for magazine capacity:

2.2 rounds.

Because apparently that's all that's needed. Civilians caught with high capacity
2.3 capacity assault magazines Will face capital punishment, since it's clear
they where intent on nefarious purposes, since the extra capacity is never
Needed for self-defense. :facepalm:

Reading these legal documents of distorted logic makes my brain physically hurt.


Noble

I don't think that the judge understood the statement made in the Peruta decision. Then again, considering he specifically states that part of the dissenting argument, even if it did look to the history as did the assenting argument, pertains towards his ruling is in obvious disagreement with the decision of the CA9 as it stands. This judge is essentially overriding a superior courts decision.


Ugh, why even bother with this crap...

Judge, please rule in favour of the defendants so we can just send it to the next rung on the ladder, you're going to do it anyway, you're just a bump in the road, and some day I hope you bump the wrong truck and a pile of **** falls all over you.


Just found this. Basically most lawyers think he is an ******* that bends readings to his will. http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=146

kcbrown
02-19-2014, 5:46 PM
And people wonder why I have the view of the judiciary that I have.

Oh, no, a judge would never abuse his position and rule based on the outcome he desires instead of logic, law, and the evidence before him. No, they're too professional for that, right?

:facepalm:


The surprising thing isn't that this judge ruled in the way he did. The surprising thing is that there are so many people who disagree with my assessment of the judiciary even after seeing decisions like this one.

Tincon
02-19-2014, 6:03 PM
No one said it would never happen. However, you are basing your perception of the entire judicial process on anecdotal evidence. Moreover, there is contrary anecdotal evidence (Peruta?).

ojisan
02-19-2014, 6:13 PM
^ We will have to wait and see if and how long Peruta lasts.
For those of us in CA, Heller and McDonald haven't meant much.
We'll see what the 9th does with Peruta.
KC, don't say "I was wrong" just yet.
;)

(In general, KC is a ever-shining bright beacon of hope compared to me).

OleCuss
02-19-2014, 6:13 PM
I'm really enjoying this most recent page of this thread!

Great information from multiple individuals, but especially from Clint.

Much appreciated.

OleCuss
02-19-2014, 6:19 PM
^ We will have to wait and see if and how long Peruta lasts.
For those of us in CA, Heller and McDonald haven't meant much.
We'll see what the 9th does with Peruta.
KC, don't say "I was wrong" just yet.
;)

(In general, KC is a ever-shining bright beacon of hope compared to me).

I can understand why you might not think the Heller and McDonald have meant much here in Kalifornia. Not sure, however, that is truly the case.

I happen to think that if we did not have Heller and McDonald that our situation would be far, far worse. While I may be no fan of JB, he is the MVP in the RKBA political game here in Kalifornia - and if we didn't have Heller and McDonald I think he would not have vetoed some of the insanity which the legislature sent him.

I think we have benefited greatly from Heller and McDonald. We haven't benefited as we should, but I shudder to think of what it would be like in Kalifornia if we did not have those cases decided favorably. It's bad now, but it would be almost indescribably insane without them.

Tincon
02-19-2014, 6:23 PM
I can understand why you might not think the Heller and McDonald have meant much here in Kalifornia. Not sure, however, that is truly the case.

I happen to think that if we did not have Heller and McDonald that our situation would be far, far worse. While I may be no fan of JB, he is the MVP in the RKBA political game here in Kalifornia - and if we didn't have Heller and McDonald I think he would not have vetoed some of the insanity which the legislature sent him.

I think we have benefited greatly from Heller and McDonald. We haven't benefited as we should, but I shudder to think of what it would be like in Kalifornia if we did not have those cases decided favorably. It's bad now, but it would be almost indescribably insane without them.

I completely agree. I think people underestimate what JB and our CRPA/NRA lobbyists have done for us in the Capital. Things could be much worse.

kcbrown
02-19-2014, 7:07 PM
No one said it would never happen. However, you are basing your perception of the entire judicial process on anecdotal evidence. Moreover, there is contrary anecdotal evidence (Peruta?).

Right. So it becomes a question of which happens more often, and in particular, in the context of RKBA cases and other cases in which the judge has a strong personal opinion and/or stake.

If it were relatively rare, then the judiciary would be very nearly of one voice on this as regards Heller and its applicability, and it would not look anything like what we've gotten out of the east coast circuits. After all, the logical inferences are identical, as is the applicable jurisprudence (most especially with respect to the proper way to apply Supreme Court decisions, the means of distinguishing dicta from jurisprudential parts of a decision, etc.), as are the general facts. Most especially, there should be no question that the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home, because to even question that is to insist that the Supreme Court calls out explicit exemptions to enumerated right protections just for fun.

And yet, what we've seen is anything but that. Rather, we've seen massive resistance to the Supreme Court on this. That cannot come from anyplace except judges imposing their own personal preferences upon the judicial sphere.

And that, in a nutshell, is a direct match with my claim.


And so, to claim that the judiciary does not do what I've been claiming it does to roughly the degree I claim it does is to turn a blind eye to that which has been right before you all along.


Note, too, that Peruta isn't necessarily contrary evidence (though one might be able to make a reasonably solid argument for that with respect to O'Scannlain). In fact, I would argue that it's more supporting than contrary evidence, because the votes on the panel were consistent with what one would expect based on party affiliation. And while party affiliation is most certainly a vast oversimplification of a person's personal beliefs, there can be no question that there is a reasonably strong correlation between a person's political party affiliation and their personal beliefs, precisely because people gravitate towards the political party that is a closer match for their beliefs than the other(s).

Posner on the 7th Circuit is the only judge I'm explicitly aware of who actually takes an unbiased approach to his decisions, because he was the author of both the 7th Circuit McDonald opinion, which was against RKBA, and the Moore decision, which upheld it precisely because of the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald. I'm positive there are others -- Posner is most certainly not going to be unique in this respect -- but the judicial record at the district and circuit levels makes it quite plain that his type is relatively rare.


ETA: Additional support for my hypothesis: From Wikipedia:


Using statistical analysis of Supreme Court votes, scholars found that an inferred value representing a Justice's ideological preference on a simple conservative–liberal scale is sufficient to predict a large number of that justice's votes.[5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justice s#cite_note-5)]



If personal belief, which is a superset of ideological preference, were not strongly involved in judicial outcomes, then the above would not be true at all. And yet, it appears to be. Thus, my hypothesis is valid (since if A -> B, then !B -> !A).

Q.E.D.

Noble Cause
02-19-2014, 7:32 PM
I don't think that the judge understood the statement made in the Peruta decision. Then again, considering he specifically states that part of the dissenting argument, even if it did look to the history as did the assenting argument, pertains towards his ruling is in obvious disagreement with the decision of the CA9 as it stands. This judge is essentially overriding a superior courts decision.

Ugh, why even bother with this crap...

Judge, please rule in favour of the defendants so we can just send it to the next rung on the ladder, you're going to do it anyway, you're just a bump in the road, and some day I hope you bump the wrong truck and a pile of **** falls all over you.

Just found this. Basically most lawyers think he is an ******* that bends readings to his will.

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=146

Thanks for the link critiquing Judge William Alsup. :)

Was reading the comments, here's a typical comment:

Rating:2.5
Comments:
Eratic, testy, petty, and often unprepared. Demonstrates a meticulous unfamiliarity with the briefs. Hearings are predictable. He let the first person speak, then react emotionally to something, and the hearing is devoted to his uninformed, and very transient, new interest.

His written rulings seem thoughtful, but either they are intellectually dishonest, or he gives his clerks too much freedom to conform the opinion to his desired outcome.

You can't say he's pro- or -anti anything in his rulings. He's erratic. He is not stupid. He's intellectually lazy regarding the cases before him.


Most of the comments are equally unkind, with a general pattern emerging.


Noble

fizux
02-19-2014, 7:35 PM
This will have a real effect on people in those cities.
Keep rubbing it in. Thanks.

Hard to believe this is the same judge smart enough to learn the programming language Java just to fully understand a case.
The whole point of Java is that it is supposed to be easy to learn, with as much independence from hardware as possible.

kcbrown
02-19-2014, 7:51 PM
The whole point of Java is that it is supposed to be easy to learn, with as much independence from hardware as possible.

And it shows, too, because it is consistently and horribly abused by people who lack the discipline or understanding to write proper, easily understood, and easily maintained code.

PackingHeatInSDCA
02-19-2014, 7:56 PM
[QUOTE=Tincon;13477639]Ugh. "The bottom line on history is that there is no proof that multi-bullet magazines for firearms were in use at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment."

...[QUOTE]

There was also no radio, tv news or even the world wide web at the time of the ratification of the first amendment, yet they are still very much protected. Why is the 2nd any different?

Tincon
02-19-2014, 8:10 PM
I honestly think the problem with some people around here is not that they are "realists," but rather that they actually desire (or believe to be inevitable) armed conflict with the government. To that end, they attempt to persuade others (and perhaps themselves) that non-violent solutions (including judicial) cannot and will not be effective. To do so is not only counter-productive, it is just as intellectually dishonest as the decision rendered by this judge.

Gray Peterson
02-19-2014, 8:22 PM
Earlier today, the Court denied (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SFVPOA-v.-San-Francisco_Order-Denying-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf) Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

In light of the errors in the Court's ruling, Plaintiffs plan to appeal the Motion and seek Urgent/Emergency relief from the 9th Circuit seeking a temporary stay of enforcement (before the ordinance takes effect) while the parties brief, and the Ninth Circuit considers, the merits of the MPI appeal.

Note that the Sunnyvale (San Jose) court is not bound by this opinion.
A ruling on the MPI in that case is expected sometime next week.

I will post more information as it becomes available.

-Clint

Clint,

Thank you for stating that you'll file a Circuit Rule 27-3 emergency motion. It was particularly important in the non-2A Isaacson v. Horne case to stop the AZ 20 week law from ever taking effect. Also, thank you for you and your legal team's work on this case.

kcbrown
02-19-2014, 8:42 PM
I honestly think the problem with some people around here is not that they are "realists," but rather that they actually desire (or believe to be inevitable) armed conflict with the government.


There is a substantial difference between believing armed conflict to be inevitable and actually desiring it. People for whom the first applies but not the second will back any and all attempts to avoid said conflict, whilst people for whom the second applies will not.

I'm of the former variety, but only because of my understanding of history and the patterns contained within, along with awareness of the various experimental observations (e.g., the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) and its offshoots) and the logical conclusions that must be drawn from them.



To that end, they attempt to persuade others (and perhaps themselves) that non-violent solutions (including judicial) cannot and will not be effective. To do so is not only counter-productive, it is just as intellectually dishonest as the decision rendered by this judge.There is a major difference between expecting failure and acting based on that expectation. There are some things for which the possibility of failure is irrelevant. The fight for liberty (of which the fight for the right to keep and bear arms is an important subset) is one of those things.

Look, the deal here is that the sort of person we need for this fight is the type of person whose determination and spirit reflects that of the anti-Federalists of the founding era. We need people who are going to do everything they can for the cause of liberty no matter how bleak the outcome looks. The fight for liberty demands nothing less. The plain fact of the matter is that people who aren't prepared for the rise of tyranny and the sheer determination of its proponents will buckle under the resulting strain when reality hits. It is this way with all tyrannies.

So you can either have people learn what's likely to be in store for us from people like me, and be prepared for it when it comes (and be willing to fight to the end), or you can have people be deer in the headlights. When that point comes, we will lose the latter people, and if we depend on them at that point, then we will lose the fight altogether. I tell you plainly that being ignorant of the chances that a peaceful solution will work is of no use to anyone but those who support tyranny.

My only concern is that such knowledge might cause some to want to take certain actions prematurely. But those who know what's at stake also know that the right course of action is to try all peaceful solutions first, that it must be the supporters of tyranny, not us, who choose to go down the darkest of paths by their own actions.

prometa
02-19-2014, 11:47 PM
Mr. Alsup got the Oracle v Google case completely wrong (read the transcript of the appeal and it will be apparent) and the brief denying the motion here is conspicuous in its logical contradictions. IIRC, he also made some minor rulings in Apple v Samsung that went the other way in the end too.

Speaking of Judge Posner, his rulings in the tech sphere have also been widely lauded as well reasoned and comprehensive.

Two does not make a trend, but good judges tend to be good in all types of cases.

Noble Cause
02-19-2014, 11:50 PM
The whole point of Java is that it is supposed to be easy to learn, with as much independence from hardware as possible.

Lol. Thx for that clarification, Fizux.

Your insinuation being if Judge Alsup had learned, say, C, or C++, that
would have been much more impressive, no ?

I used to write my own customized hex editors for hacking games & uh,
"other stuff" .... :D so I have enough knowledge on the subject matter
to somewhat agree on your observation. :)

Current versions of Python and Ruby are attracting my attention,
and I may start dabbling in those for my own intellectual amusement.


Noble

lastinline
02-20-2014, 12:05 AM
If major cities are continually hit with lawsuits and keep having to pay our legal bills, is it possible to turn these lawsuits into a profit making venture for the sake of funding additional suits? This could be used as a tool of punishment against said governments, and hopefully do many of them great financial harm. I think it's high time they feel our pain.

taperxz
02-20-2014, 12:12 AM
All this judge is doing is passing the buck on a decision he doesn't want to make.

I would not think the ninth is going to allow for confiscation before a final ruling.

Noble Cause
02-20-2014, 12:12 AM
Mr. Alsup got the Oracle v Google case completely wrong (read the transcript of the appeal and it will be apparent) and the brief denying the motion here is conspicuous in its logical contradictions. IIRC, he also made some minor rulings in Apple v Samsung that went the other way in the end too.

Speaking of Judge Posner, his rulings in the tech sphere have also been widely lauded as well reasoned and comprehensive.

Two does not make a trend, but good judges tend to be good in all types of cases.

That was pretty much my take in reading articles pertaining to the case,
although I must confess to not reading all the actual legal documents.

Judge William Alsup may be intelligent, but he is full of contradictions
at the same time. And he's just plain wrong in his latest decision.

I fall back to my original assessment to explain this strange dichotomy:

I guess when it comes to the Second Amendment, irrational emotions
overwhelm logical cognitive abilities.... < sigh >


Noble

Noble Cause
02-20-2014, 12:30 AM
If major cities are continually hit with lawsuits and keep having to pay our legal bills, is it possible to turn these lawsuits into a profit making venture for the sake of funding additional suits? This could be used as a tool of punishment against said governments, and hopefully do many of them great financial harm. I think it's high time they feel our pain.

Hi lastinline

Welcome to Calguns.

Like your name implies, you're a little bit late to the party :)

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/Chicago%20Check.jpg

God, I never get tired of seeing that, lol.


Noble

IVC
02-20-2014, 1:00 PM
Ugh. "The bottom line on history is that there is no proof that multi-bullet magazines for firearms were in use at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment."

Heller requires the opposite: "Were there any long-standing historical restrictions on magazine capacity at the time of the ratification?"

Since there weren't, magazine capacity restrictions don't fall under the "long standing restrictions"...

RobertMW
02-20-2014, 1:48 PM
Lol. Thx for that clarification, Fizux.

Your insinuation being if Judge Alsup had learned, say, C, or C++, that
would have been much more impressive, no ?
Noble

If he learned how to create his own multi-threaded real-time operating system in ANY language, I would be impressed.

Does anyone know exactly how WELL he learned Java? Was it, learned enough to know the difference between a class and a method? Was it "Oh hey I know what a variable is!"? Was it, "Oh yeah, that is very similar to how I designed a prototype database to help me manage all of my case files that can automatically cross reference all the cases that are mentioned in a brief."?

There are very different levels to what you can call "Learning" any programming language. And even people who learn how to program, usually use languages for doing the same sort of work all the time.

For instance, me. I know C, C++, C#, Java, Verilog, VHDL, and I want to learn about this language that Mozilla is creating called RUST. But I spend all of my time doing embedded work. The only times I use the high order languages is when I want to communicate with a PC, in which case writing OOP just makes everything so much cleaner. Otherwise I am down at the nitty gritty, bypassing most of the capabilities of a language because I have such minimal resources that if I let every variable do whatever the heck it wants I will be running out of memory in a second. API call? Hell no, turn off the holo-deck safety protocols, go and write directly to memory, I will make those bits DANCE.

Tell me to create anything to do with creating large scale programs that are allowed to manage their own memory and I go full retard.