View Single Post
Old 07-02-2010, 4:01 PM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,006
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by wash View Post
This sounds great.

I would just like to say that I'm not so concerned with defeating the annoying firearm laws as the restrictive laws. The .50 BMG ban, 10 day wait and high capacity magazine bans should not be high priority fights unless they set up one of the more important cases.

I would much rather have LOC, a gutted roster of not un-safe handguns and legal mail order ammo purchases than legal .50 BMG, NICS with no wait and legal standard capacity magazines.

Eventually I want it all but first I would like to strike down the laws that don't have an easy work-around.
I'd say in general we're in agreement with you - things that have harsh punishments and can't be worked around we want to kill before we go after things that are just annoying. That said, we may sometimes go after an annoyance for one of a few reasons:

1) We have to because someone is getting wrongfully prosecuted. We at CGF always remember that our mission is to "get the charges dismissed", first, "make law" second. Our core mission is to keep law abiding Californians out of jail, and if we're forced to go after something in a sub-optimal order to save someone's skin, we will.

2) As you say above, because it might set something else up. We might have a real clear shot at a precedent through one of these, and even though it doesn't matter, if we can easily get a court to agree that we have a right to do X, we might be able to use that later.

3) It might just be easy and fun. Especially if the law is just egregious, and as we get more precedent, you might see us knock over some simple stuff simply because we can.
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter -
Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peņa Plaintiff
Reply With Quote