Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-13-2009, 3:56 PM
Steyr_223's Avatar
Steyr_223 Steyr_223 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Raggedy Edge of the Verse, Fremont, California Republic
Posts: 9,513
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Smile S.F. Housing Authority agrees to let tenants own guns

Victory! I can now live in section 8 housing..



What a minute, I am a home owner..



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...9KQO.DTL&tsp=1


S.F. Housing Authority agrees to let tenants own guns

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

(01-13) 16:07 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The San Francisco Housing Authority has agreed to allow its residents to own guns in a settlement of a National Rifle Association lawsuit that followed last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right to bear arms.

In papers filed Monday with a federal judge, the Housing Authority agreed not to enforce a provision it added to tenant leases in 2005 prohibiting the possession of guns and ammunition. The ban will now apply only to illegal gun ownership, like possession of a machine gun or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

The National Rifle Association filed the suit on behalf of an unidentified San Francisco tenant a day after the Supreme Court's June 2008 ruling that declared the Constitution's Second Amendment gave Americans the right to possess guns for self-defense. It was one of a number of suits filed by gun advocates against local firearms restrictions around the nation after the court struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban.

Tim Larsen, a lawyer for the Housing Authority, said Tuesday the agency never intended to enforce its 2005 ban against law-abiding gun owners and has never done so, even though the lease provision covered legal as well as illegal weapons.

"Our intention was to go after people who were engaged in criminal activity," Larsen said.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-13-2009, 4:20 PM
DedEye's Avatar
DedEye DedEye is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Transit
Posts: 8,685
iTrader: 36 / 97%
Default

How nice of them to "let" tenants own guns . Another victory is still good though.
__________________
These posts are Fiction. They do not contain legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. Any resemblance to real persons are pure coincidence. These posts may pose an inhalation hazard, reading can be harmful or fatal. No statements made on this forum are meant to represent any corporate or business entity, others, or myself. Especially not myself.

Stop duping answers, help expand the FAQ.

Why yes, that is me in my avatar and yes, I AM wearing a life jacket.

WTS Keltec P11
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-13-2009, 4:24 PM
recshooter recshooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CA/AZ
Posts: 730
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Oh, we never intended to enforce it though...WTF?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-13-2009, 4:27 PM
cadurand cadurand is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 275
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What a silly thing to say. It's like admitting you don't really do your job.

Should ask them to go through their list of rules and note which rules they intend to enforce and which they don't.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-13-2009, 4:28 PM
Quake0 Quake0 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The lease provision covered legal as well as illegal weapons. Why would they include this in the lease if they had no intention to enforce it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-13-2009, 4:31 PM
Steyr_223's Avatar
Steyr_223 Steyr_223 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Raggedy Edge of the Verse, Fremont, California Republic
Posts: 9,513
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Next I am waiting for CA DOJ to say theyr are not really enforcing AW and Hi-Cap Mag bans..

LOL!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-13-2009, 4:44 PM
rayra rayra is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-13-2009, 4:52 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is online now
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,278
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

remember that the NRA's lawyers have to work for their plantiff, and if SF folds and gives the plantiff what he wants, its hard to fight for more and may not be kosher to keep pushing when the client says to stop. Its hard to create legal precidence if the defendants keep folding, and that is a legal tactic that they have employed lately.
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-13-2009, 4:53 PM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,544
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayra View Post
Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.
I think money will be needed in other better cases. This is good for headlines but would not have expanded Heller. Nordyke will give us that avenue. Better to save the $$$$$$$ for the next big one which will be either the CA "good cause" CCW issue or Open Carry related IMO.

And this was against SF Housing Authoity and it's civil lease agreement (I don't think it turned out to be what NRA thought when the suit started and named SF county/city too).
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-13-2009, 4:56 PM
rbgaynor's Avatar
rbgaynor rbgaynor is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 233
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayra View Post
Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.
This case was always targeted and timed for the big win (incorporation). But there isn't much the NRA can do if the other side folds like a cheap suit...
__________________
- Brian

Oceanside Practical Pistol Club - USPSA and IDPA matches in San Diego County
Linea de Fuego - USPSA and 3-Gun matches in San Diego County
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-13-2009, 5:02 PM
PonchoTA's Avatar
PonchoTA PonchoTA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ!! I'm freeeeeee!
Posts: 2,332
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Remember, we have to win EVERY battle, they only have to win one.

Regardless of how the victory was worded, the fact that they admit they never intended to go after the law abiding citizens should give some more teeth to our argument.

I'm not saying it was a great victory, but it WAS a victory!!
Keep up the good fight!


Paul
__________________
Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.”
("A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer’s hands.")
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD

NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-13-2009, 5:03 PM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,153
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayra View Post
Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.
You're right, the NRA should have FORCED the SFHA to continue on with the court case instead of letting them make their own decision to drop the law!!


Oh wait, they CAN'T force them to keep fighting.
Oh well, it's still their fault!!

__________________
NRA Patron Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CGF.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-13-2009, 5:48 PM
C.G.'s Avatar
C.G. C.G. is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 6,761
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The ban will now apply only to illegal gun ownership, like possession of a machine gun or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.


I guess nobody told the reporter that that was the law already.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-13-2009, 8:30 PM
mymonkeyman mymonkeyman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,051
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayra View Post
Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.
It's not like you can keep arguing after the other side agreed to settle the case. Even if you tried, it wouldn't be good for you since it would piss the judge off to no end and prejudice you on the merits.
__________________
The above does not constitute legal advice. I am not your lawyer.

"[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-13-2009, 8:36 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayra View Post
Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.
No, wrong. You can't win for more than you ask.

Even as SF lawyers were denouncing the case in public as 'badly formed' they (under Brady guidance) were backing away faster than the NRA could attack. Courts don't allow you to beat someone 'deader than dead'.

This would have been a case leading to incorporation should it have been fought further by SF, but the opposition saw what was happening. Brady/LCAV are trying to stop the inevitable - and throughout the country (like Chicago suburbs) a simple NRA demand letter is usually enough now to change some outright bans. (Chicago's still trying to dance, we'll see
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-13-2009, 8:41 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If the LCAV provide the lawyers, do they have to pay the costs (fines, for example) if they lose, or do they have to be sued for malpractice by the taxpayers?
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-13-2009, 8:43 PM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,544
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The only place where the NRA is not continuing is on the issue of an award of attorny's fees. Maybe it looks bad to take money from an agency providing housing to the poor? I don't know. But in this case they've choosen to move on.

I say, "NEXT"!!!! Lets get to the meat of the 2nd A.! Who is up for starting the Richmond, Ca. Howitzers or the San Francisco Light (in the loffers) Dragoons?
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-13-2009, 8:56 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,778
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty1 View Post
The only place where the NRA is not continuing is on the issue of an award of attorny's fees. Maybe it looks bad to take money from an agency providing housing to the poor? I don't know. But in this case they've choosen to move on.
I get the impression (but cannot prove) that if the other side folds before you can get to court, then there's no recovering attorney's fees.

I believe the same thing is happening with all the Chicago suburbs that are folding under threats of federal lawsuits from the NRA, ISRA, the SAF and others.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-13-2009, 9:04 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty1 View Post
The only place where the NRA is not continuing is on the issue of an award of attorny's fees. Maybe it looks bad to take money from an agency providing housing to the poor? I don't know. But in this case they've choosen to move on.
Not sure, but I think the main work may have been the demand letter.
When the opposition rolls back at a faster rate than you can chase them, not much work needs to be done. And the rapid settlement was useful as a flag-waving exercise to other entities, once we knew the case wouldn't trundle on towards incorporation issues.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-13-2009, 9:18 PM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,006
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayra View Post
Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.
Really, this is just ridiculous. The NRA wins this case, and there's still something to complain about with them?

I can quite assure you there was a lot of colorful language being used in the NRA when they figured out SFHA didn't have the spine to get beat up on this. Yeah, it's unfortunate that they couldn't run this case all the way up, since it was so obviously terrible not even San Francisco would defend it. That's not NRA's fault.

-TQ
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-13-2009, 9:29 PM
mblat mblat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,257
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
You're right, the NRA should have FORCED the SFHA to continue on with the court case instead of letting them make their own decision to drop the law!!


Oh wait, they CAN'T force them to keep fighting.
Oh well, it's still their fault!!

What do you mean they CAN'T force them to keep fighting? NRA has guns, right? They should have armed housing authority so it could start armed resistance.....
__________________
Quote:
The essence of Western civilization is the Magna Carta, not the Magna Mac. The fact that non-Westerners may bite into the later has no implications for their accepting the former.
S.P. Huntington.
WTB: CZ452
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-13-2009, 10:33 PM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Do some people just attack the NRA because they have too much free time on thier hands? How can you keep fighting after the other side surrenders?

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-13-2009, 11:47 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,868
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steyr_223 View Post
Next I am waiting for CA DOJ to say theyr are not really enforcing AW and Hi-Cap Mag bans..

LOL!
There's no ban on "high-cap" magazines, you just cant sell, trade, give, lend, keep for sale or manufacture.
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-13-2009, 11:48 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,868
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
remember that the NRA's lawyers have to work for their plantiff, and if SF folds and gives the plantiff what he wants, its hard to fight for more and may not be kosher to keep pushing when the client says to stop. Its hard to create legal precidence if the defendants keep folding, and that is a legal tactic that they have employed lately.
All the NRA had to do was tell their lawyers that they will not make any deals and will accept nothing short of a court ruling.
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-13-2009, 11:51 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,868
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
No, wrong. You can't win for more than you ask.

Even as SF lawyers were denouncing the case in public as 'badly formed' they (under Brady guidance) were backing away faster than the NRA could attack. Courts don't allow you to beat someone 'deader than dead'.

This would have been a case leading to incorporation should it have been fought further by SF, but the opposition saw what was happening. Brady/LCAV are trying to stop the inevitable - and throughout the country (like Chicago suburbs) a simple NRA demand letter is usually enough now to change some outright bans. (Chicago's still trying to dance, we'll see
How is the other side agreeing to not enforce this what they asked for? I would want nothing less than a court ruling that it was an illegal practice.
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-13-2009, 11:55 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDay View Post
All the NRA had to do was tell their lawyers that they will not make any deals and will accept nothing short of a court ruling.
That is not how federal litigation works. If you try to do that your Judge will penalize you. If the other side comes to terms to settle the controversy, you're done. You can get the best settlement you can get or have the court throw the case out on standing. Then you face the risk of drawing the pissed off judge the next time you're in that Federal District - especially on the related case doctrine.

The Federal courts are designed to end cases and controversies as quickly and cheaply for everyone as possible. SFHA cried uncle and there isn't more you can do. I personally witnessed senior NRA decisions makers making derogatory comments that the other side was too wimpy to put up a fight. It was not for a lack of desire or will on the NRA's part.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-14-2009, 12:18 AM
FreedomIsNotFree's Avatar
FreedomIsNotFree FreedomIsNotFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,637
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDay View Post
All the NRA had to do was tell their lawyers that they will not make any deals and will accept nothing short of a court ruling.
Wrong. An attorney has a fiduciary duty to his/her client. NOT THE NRA.
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-14-2009, 12:25 AM
Monoz's Avatar
Monoz Monoz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 123
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDay View Post
There's no ban on "high-cap" magazines, you just cant sell, trade, give, lend, keep for sale or manufacture.
The law does not ban selling.
__________________
"The enemy," retorted Yossarian with weighted precision, "is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." - Catch 22
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-14-2009, 12:26 AM
FreedomIsNotFree's Avatar
FreedomIsNotFree FreedomIsNotFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,637
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monoz View Post
The law does not ban selling.
It does out here in CA...
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-14-2009, 12:39 AM
Monoz's Avatar
Monoz Monoz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 123
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomIsNotFree View Post
It does out here in CA...
Read the statute (PC 12020(a)(2)). It does not ban selling. It bans other things, but not selling.
__________________
"The enemy," retorted Yossarian with weighted precision, "is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." - Catch 22
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-14-2009, 12:42 AM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,868
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monoz View Post
Read the statute (PC 12020(a)(2)). It does not ban selling. It bans other things, but not selling.
You are wrong, however there are exceptions for armored car companies and law enforcement.

Quote:
PC 12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the
state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives,
lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable
firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a
firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which
contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or
carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst
trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any
short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any
leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol,
any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge
knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice
handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon
of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy,
sandclub, sap, or sandbag.
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale,
or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

Last edited by JDay; 01-14-2009 at 12:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-14-2009, 12:47 AM
Monoz's Avatar
Monoz Monoz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 123
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDay View Post
You are wrong, however there are exceptions for armored car companies and law enforcement.
I am not wrong.

As you highlighted, the statute bans keeping for sale, offering for sale, and exposing for sale. It does not actually ban selling. Keeping for sale, offering for sale, and exposing for sale are acts that are distinctly different from selling.
__________________
"The enemy," retorted Yossarian with weighted precision, "is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." - Catch 22

Last edited by Monoz; 01-14-2009 at 1:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-14-2009, 12:54 AM
FreedomIsNotFree's Avatar
FreedomIsNotFree FreedomIsNotFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,637
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monoz View Post
Read the statute (PC 12020(a)(2)). It does not ban selling. It bans other things, but not selling.
HAHA...ok, when are you going to start selling high capacity mags to CA residents?

You really have no idea what you are talking about.
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-14-2009, 12:55 AM
FreedomIsNotFree's Avatar
FreedomIsNotFree FreedomIsNotFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,637
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monoz View Post
I am not wrong.

As you highlighted, she statute bans keeping for sale, offering for sale, and exposing for sale. It does not actually ban selling. Keeping for sale, offering for sale, and exposing for sale are acts that are distinctly different from selling.
Who told you that? I suggest you consult with an attorney before you get yourself in serious legal trouble.
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-14-2009, 12:57 AM
Monoz's Avatar
Monoz Monoz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 123
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomIsNotFree View Post
Who told you that? I suggest you consult with an attorney before you get yourself in serious legal trouble.
Kindly quote the part of the statute that bans selling. Not the part that bans keeping for sale, exposing for sale, or offering for sale, but the part that bans selling. I don't believe you can, because I don't believe there is any such statute in the state of California.
__________________
"The enemy," retorted Yossarian with weighted precision, "is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." - Catch 22

Last edited by Monoz; 01-14-2009 at 1:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-14-2009, 1:01 AM
FreedomIsNotFree's Avatar
FreedomIsNotFree FreedomIsNotFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,637
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monoz View Post
Then kindly quote part of the statute that bans selling. Not the part that bans keeping for sale, exposing for sale, or offering for sale, but the part that bans selling.
Alright, you win. You are smarter than the preeminent Gun Rights attorney's in the State. Perhaps you've been exposed to too much "pow pow" lately out there in Colorado. I hear the snowboarding is great...
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-14-2009, 1:06 AM
Monoz's Avatar
Monoz Monoz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 123
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomIsNotFree View Post
Alright, you win. You are smarter than the preeminent Gun Rights attorney's in the State.
All I'm pointing out is that the statute does not actually ban selling. I'm not giving advice, I'm just making an observation that there is no statutory ban on selling.

As to whether one could construct a realistic scenario that involved selling without involving any keeping, offering, or exposing is another question altogether.
__________________
"The enemy," retorted Yossarian with weighted precision, "is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." - Catch 22
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-14-2009, 12:57 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monoz View Post
All I'm pointing out is that the statute does not actually ban selling.
It does. There is no way to complete a sale without offering or
exposing for sale and/or giving the magazine to someone. When you say "yes" to an offer, you have exposed for sale and then you give the magazine to someone for money.

You would lose that court case every time.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-14-2009, 2:29 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Maybe he thinks sales can be made where someone walks up to you, hands you money, and says "I've just bought your standard capacity magazine(s)". If you don't own any, you give their money back. If you do, that you weren't considering ever selling (keeping for sale), showing in public (exposing for sale), or talking about (offering for sale), then at that spontaneous and completely random moment you decide whether they are now the property of the stranger or if you have no desire to let the precious item go.

As if that would ever happen.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-14-2009, 6:55 PM
F-2_Challenger F-2_Challenger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,076
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

And chalk up another small win, with much bigger ones on the way.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:24 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.