PDA

View Full Version : Hunt case on CA SB23


nhanson
04-28-2008, 4:59 PM
Looks like the judge ruled against a continuance so the trial goes forward 13 May 2008 with the mandatory settlement phase!

22-APR-2008
09:14 AM Minute order Judge Simpson
Entry: Minute Order from Dept.: 97C Clerk: K Artis Reporter: S McKennon Nature of Hearing: Ex Parte Motion to Continue Trial - Motion is denied. The Court finds no good cause for continuance. The trial dates are to remain as set. ng

Enjoy

GW
04-28-2008, 5:02 PM
Well, now things may get interesting here in the Golden State.

Heller and Hunt
May both bring us good news!

StukaJr
04-28-2008, 5:07 PM
Double the anticipation, double the win!

Let's hope the reason prevails!

bwiese
04-28-2008, 5:11 PM
Hunt has been useful to us, but don't get hopes up for something major: there are/will be better vehicles than Hunt in very near future.

xdimitrix
04-28-2008, 5:53 PM
Roughly how long until we get ruling on this case? Or is it still way too early to guess?

Sgt Raven
04-28-2008, 6:04 PM
Roughly how long until we get ruling on this case? Or is it still way too early to guess?

We’ll know the outcome to Heller long before this case is settled. ;)

nhanson
04-28-2008, 6:09 PM
Hunt has been useful to us, but don't get hopes up for something major: there are/will be better vehicles than Hunt in very near future.

Agreed! However, every small step helps!

Enjoy

ptoguy2002
04-28-2008, 8:31 PM
Edit: Found it, never mind.

eaglemike
04-28-2008, 10:21 PM
Anyone else notice the papers filed by I. Chinn contained the definition of an assault rifle as being selective fire???? I know we all know that's what it really is - but I thought it interesting that this was included in the paper he submitted to the court.

all the best,

Mike

tombinghamthegreat
04-28-2008, 10:36 PM
Looks like the judge ruled against a continuance so the trial goes forward 13 May 2008 with the mandatory settlement phase!



Enjoy

can you provide a link about this case?

Solidsnake87
04-28-2008, 11:36 PM
Yeah, whats this? post a link pls.

elenius
04-29-2008, 8:30 AM
Anyone else notice the papers filed by I. Chinn contained the definition of an assault rifle as being selective fire???? I know we all know that's what it really is - but I thought it interesting that this was included in the paper he submitted to the court.

all the best,

Mike

Hmm, well an assault rifle is selective fire, an assault weapon is not. Assault rifle is a military term, assault weapon is a legal term.

eaglemike
04-29-2008, 8:42 AM
Hmm, well an assault rifle is selective fire, an assault weapon is not. Assault rifle is a military term, assault weapon is a legal term.
I beg to differ. An assault weapon is a weapon used in an assault. The media and the "let me scare you so I can ban the scary things" people have skewed the meaning. This is about as bad as the common mis-use of the term "billet." Anything capable of being used as an offensive weapon is an assault weapon.

all the best,

Mike

mikehaas
04-29-2008, 8:47 AM
can you provide a link about this case?
In a nutshell...
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/huntvlockyer.php

Edward Hunt, District Attorney of Fresno County, acting in his personal capacity as a citizen, filed a request for a statewide injunction against enforcement of the Assault Weapon Control Act (AWCA). The plaintiffs contended that the regulations are so vague that even police and prosecutors find it impossible to identify which weapons fall under the act. The court determined that there were insufficient grounds to grant an injunction.

Looking for a better nutshell...

ADDENDUM: When the ill-conceived Silveira v CA case was in bloom, Dave Kopel compared Hunt favorably against that catastrophe...

"...Styled Hunt v. California and filed in September 2001, after the California Department of Justice (DOJ) promulgated regulations, this case is proceeding in Fresno superior court. Fresno District Attorney Ed Hunt and Mendocino District Attorney Norm Vroman are lead plaintiffs. This prosecutor suit is unprecedented, pitting the chief law-enforcement officers of two counties (the DAs) against the chief law-enforcement officer in the state (the attorney general). It has survived two attempts by the DOJ to have it dismissed, and is now moving toward trial.

Quite clearly, a lawsuit which carefully attacks specific administrative regulations, and which supported by district attorneys who claim that the regulations are unconstitutionally vague, has a much more realistic chance of success than an direct attack on a statute enacted by the legislature..."
(http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2003/Silveira-Threat.htm)

zinfull
04-29-2008, 9:19 AM
It seems the DOJ is is using the same tactic as the medical insurance companies. They are postponing until the people are dead.

Mendocino District Attorney Norm Vroman RIP
http://ca.lp.org/printer_news20060922.shtml

Jerry

nhanson
04-29-2008, 9:32 AM
can you provide a link about this case?

Here is the court status link....

http://banweb.co.fresno.ca.us/plsql/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?case_id =01CECG03182&begin_date=&end_date=

Enjoy!

SigShooter
04-29-2008, 9:36 AM
Hunt has been useful to us, but don't get hopes up for something major: there are/will be better vehicles than Hunt in very near future.

This is good news indeed as I agree Hunt will probably not bring us a major win. My question is, will it take another 7 years for these "better" vehicles to have their day in court as in Hunt?

ETA: Link to Docket notes (http://banweb.co.fresno.ca.us/plsql/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?backto= P&case_id=01CECG03182&begin_date=&end_date=)

Quake0
04-29-2008, 9:44 AM
What is Hunt case about?

Liberty1
04-29-2008, 10:01 AM
What is Hunt case about? read post 15 again - referring to the AW ban being constitutionally vague (meaning it is impossible for a reasonable person to understand it's prohibitions - in this case the plaintiffs, DAs, are saying it is even to complex for those trained in the law to understand)

bulgron
04-29-2008, 10:42 AM
This is good news indeed as I agree Hunt will probably not bring us a major win. My question is, will it take another 7 years for these "better" vehicles to have their day in court as in Hunt?

ETA: Link to Docket notes (http://banweb.co.fresno.ca.us/plsql/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?backto= P&case_id=01CECG03182&begin_date=&end_date=)

It doesn't seem right that a case can get delayed almost indefinitely like this. How did they manage to do it, anyway?

Is it normal for court cases to drag out like this?

hoffmang
04-29-2008, 10:52 AM
Part of the reason this case has taken so long is that our side kept getting concessions from them. Iggy stated in a depo that a screw was enough to fix a magazine so that took that issue out of Hunt. All that's really left in Hunt is that the definition of flash hider is unknown and thus unenforceable. Because of Hunt's pendancy, no one has ever been prosecuted or convicted for simple flash hider configuration (except for one case in LA which was because of a co-operating witness who could show that the gun owner knew he was violating the law.)

Hunt will have a modest positive outcome for us and not much more.

-Gene

Fate
04-29-2008, 10:54 AM
If Hunt strikes the flash suppressor regulation from the law, that's a good start. Better than it is now, that's for sure.

Sgt Raven
04-29-2008, 2:04 PM
I beg to differ. An assault weapon is a weapon used in an assault. The media and the "let me scare you so I can ban the scary things" people have skewed the meaning. This is about as bad as the common mis-use of the term "billet." Anything capable of being used as an offensive weapon is an assault weapon.

all the best,

Mike

And Mike I beg to differ with you too. The term Assault Weapon was coined by ‘gunnies’ for ‘gunnies’ and widely used in gun magazines long before the ‘anti’s’ picked up on it. It’s a term we made for a rifle that looks like an ‘Assault Rifle’ but isn’t selective fire capable. You can blame the media and the anti’s for a lot of things, but we invented Assault Weapons, not them.

StukaJr
04-29-2008, 2:18 PM
If it's not select fire - it's not an assault weapon by its original definition, since its invention in the 40's...

Anti's have used the improper term to reach their goals and eventually it became a common use term to describe something entirely different.

It's really a job of every day citizen to dissent when something is called something that it's not - current trend are the terrorism charges against people who made a verbal threat taken too far or got too creative with firecrackers...

redcliff
05-15-2008, 12:04 AM
The term assault RIFLE was invented in the 40's and was used to define a selective fire intermediate cartridge rifle. It's literally the translation of Sturmgewehr from German.

Assault weapon came along later, but I have no idea which side invented it.

Sleepy1988
05-15-2008, 2:40 PM
The term assault RIFLE was invented in the 40's and was used to define a selective fire intermediate cartridge rifle. It's literally the translation of Sturmgewehr from German.

Assault weapon came along later, but I have no idea which side invented it.


Actually, Sturmgewehr means "storm rifle" and if you go by the intermediate cartridge definition then the M16-M4-CAR15 wouldn't actually be assault rifles, unless you consider 5.56mm to be an intermediate cartridge.

elenius
05-15-2008, 2:45 PM
I was of the impression that "intermediate" in this context means that it's more powerful than a pistol cartridge but less powerful than a traditional rifle cartridge.

DesertGunner
05-15-2008, 2:59 PM
So what are the likely outcomes of this case? Could this result in the current AW laws being struck down? Open up registration under a new set of laws?

Fjold
05-15-2008, 3:24 PM
Would this trial be held at 2317 Toulumne St. in Fresno or will it be at Van Ness?

Where is Dept 97C?

bwiese
05-15-2008, 3:27 PM
So what are the likely outcomes of this case? Could this result in the current AW laws being struck down? Open up registration under a new set of laws?

It's helped clarify 'detachable magazine' and will help nullify 'flash hider'. It won't strike down CA AW laws, that's for a future endeavor.

Hunter
05-15-2008, 6:00 PM
Looks like they settled HUNT! Starting new thread to not get lost in the pages here!

15-MAY-2008
03:45 PM Notice of settlement filed
Entry: Notice of settlement of entire action filed pursuant to CRC 3.1385. Dismissal to be filed by: 6/30/08 lp

15-MAY-2008
03:46 PM Off calendar
Entry: Off calendar for Trial Readiness scheduled for 5/23/08 case settled lp.

15-MAY-2008
03:46 PM Off calendar
Entry: Off calendar for Court Trial scheduled for 5/27/08 case settled lp.

15-MAY-2008
03:47 PM Notice of CRC 225 Hrng Printed
Entry: Docket entry for the letter produced from CSAEVNT on 15-MAY-2008 by LPETERSON.

chris
05-15-2008, 6:03 PM
so what is the result of this? other than it may be settled.