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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281  
Old 01-17-2012, 12:52 PM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,857
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
If the Republicans would get smart (and I'd not count on that) they would adopt that small government, small business focus/stance here in California and they could hook in the Tea Party types and some of the younger folks and make inroads.
wait, you mean return to their roots and what made them a party worth of supporting in the past......na, we can't have that now can we. that would just make to much sense and might even win some elections
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 01-19-2012, 1:17 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

From the Docket: http://ia700507.us.archive.org/10/it...76.docket.html

Donald E.J. Kilmer, Jr. (SBN: 179986)
Jason A. Davis (SBN: 224250)
1645 Willow Street, Suite 150
San Jose, California 95125-5120
Voice: (408) 264-8489
Fax: (408) 264-8487
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case Nos.: 3:10-CV-01255 SI
3:11-CV-02493 SI
(Consolidated Cases)
STIPULATION and JOINT
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
Re: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Case No.: 3:11-CV-05580 SI
(Related Case)
STIPULATION and JOINT
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
Re: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
MARK AARON HAYNIE, BRENDAN
JOHN RICHARDS, THE CALGUNS
FOUNDATION, INC., and THE
SECOND AMENDMENT
FOUNDATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General
of California (in her official capacity)
and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, CITY OF ROHNERT
PARK, OFFICER DEAN BECKER
(RP134), and DOES 1 TO 20,
Defendants.
BRENDAN JOHN RICHARDS, THE
CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC.,
and THE SECOND AMENDMENT
FOUNDATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General
of California (in her official capacity)
and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, SONOMA COUNTY
SHERIFFS’ OFFICE, SHERIFFS’
DEPUTY GREG MYERS (SD1023)
and DOES 1 TO 20,
Defendants.
Stipulation/Order: CMC Page 1 of 5 Haynie v. Harris
Case3:10-cv-01255-SI Document51 Filed01/05/12 Page1 of 5


IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the undersigned parties 1 2
through their respective attorneys of record that based on the following set of facts,
this Court should reschedule the Case Management Conference current set for
January 13, 2012 and make other case management orders:
1. Plaintiffs have put all current defendants on notice that based on a fourth
(4 ) false arrest under the California Assault Weapon statutes – out of th
Sonoma County (Cotati Police Department) – it is highly will likely that a
fourth (4 ) complaint will be filed in this district and likely related to the th
current three cases. Plaintiffs anticipate filing this latest action before the
end of January 2012.
2. There is a pending Case Management Conference in the consolidated cases of
Haynie v. Harris and Richards v. Harris set for January 13, 2012. (Case Nos:
3:10-CV-01255 SI and 3:11-CV-02493 SI.)
3. Defendants Rohnert Park and Officer Becker have filed a motion to dismiss
(Dkt # 22) in the second Richards v. Harris Case No.: 3:11-CV-02493 SI. The
motion is currently set for argument on February 24, 2012.
4. On December 29, 2011, a Clerk’s Notice was entered on the Docket (#12) for
the second Richards v. Harris Case (3:11-CV-05580 SI) setting an initial Case
Management Conference in that case for March 30, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
Haynie v. Harris, Case No.: 3:10-CV-01255 SI was ordered consolidated 1
with Richards v. Harris, Case No.: 3:11-CV-02493 SI, in an ordered filed on October
22, 2011. (See Documents # 42 and #15 respectively. The second Richards v.
Harris, Case No.: 3:11-CV-05580 was ordered to be related with their first two cases
in an order filed on December 21, 2011. (See documents #47 and # 20 respectively.)
Attorney Anne Keck for the Sonoma County defendants (in 3:11-CV-05580) 2
made an appearance on or about December 22, 2011. Attorney for Plaintiffs Donald
Kilmer spoke with Attorney Keck on that day. She indicated that she would be out
of her office on mandatory time off until January 6, 2012. She indicated that she
would not be able to meaningfully participate in the Case Management Conference
currently set for January 13, 2012, though she did indicate that she could attend
the conference if it went forward.
Stipulation/Order: CMC Page 2 of 5 Haynie v. Harris
Case3:10-cv-01255-SI Document51 Filed01/05/12 Page2 of 5


5. Given the recent addition of the Sonoma County Defendants as parties, and
the likely addition of the Cotati Police Department & City of Cotati, the
looming Case Management Conference and the Rohnert Park Defendant’s
pending motion, the undersigned parties believe that it would in the best
interests of the parties and that it would facilitate judicial economy to
reschedule the Jan. 13, 2012 and combine it with the March 30, 2012 Case
Management Conference.
6. The undersigned parties also agree that a coordinated briefing schedule on
various motions to dismiss that are anticipated will also facilitate judicial
economy and conserve the parties’ resources.
7. To that end the parties agree that the Court should reschedule the Case
Management Conference in this matter, currently set for January 13, 2012 at
3:00 p.m. to Friday, March 30, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. (This will give Plaintiffs
enough time to serve the Cotati Defendants and have them meaningfully
participate in the Case Management Conference.)
8. Furthermore the parties agree that the deadline for all responsive pleadings
(answers, Rule 12 motions, etc.) for current defendants are extended to
March 16, 2012 (to allow the Cotati Defendants a chance to join any motions
filed by the current Defendants.)
9. Furthermore, the Rohnert Park Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss currently set
for February 24, 2012 is reset to April 20, 2012 for the purpose of
coordinating their motions (if any) with the Sonoma and (the potential)
Cotati Defendants; and that due dates for oppositions and replies will be tied
to the hearing date instead of the date of filing of any moving papers. (i.e.,
opposition memorandums will be due three (3) weeks before the hearing and
reply memorandums will be due two (2) weeks before the hearing.)
/ / / /
/ / / /
Stipulation/Order: CMC Page 3 of 5 Haynie v. Harris
Case3:10-cv-01255-SI Document51 Filed01/05/12 Page3 of 5


SO STIPULATED.
Date: December 30, 2011 Date: December 30, 2011
/s/ /s/
Ross Moody, Donald Kilmer
Counsel for Defendants Counsel for Plaintiffs
Harris & California Dept. of Justice
Date: December 30, 2011
/s/
Robert W. Henkels
County for Defendants
City of Rohnert Park & Becker
ATTESTATION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL ORDER 45 AND
LOCAL RULE VIII.B.
I, Donald Kilmer, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California
and the United States that I have in my possession e-mail correspondence from
Ross Moody and Robert Henkels that the content of this document is acceptable to
all persons required to sign the document. I declare that this document was signed
in San Jose, CA on December 30, 2011.
/s/
Donald Kilmer, Attorney for Plaintiffs
FINDINGS AND ORDER
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties this Court makes the follow orders:
1. Plaintiffs shall diligently work to file their fourth action with similar claims
at the earliest feasible date, but in no case later than January 30, 2012 or
they risk not having this fourth case related to the current actions.
2. The Case Management Conference currently set for January 13, 2012 is
vacated and reset for March 30, 2012 at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom 10, 19th
Floor, San Francisco before the Honorable Susan Illston.
3. The parties are directed to file a Joint Case Management Conference
Statement 10 days before the conference. Participation in the conference is
mandatory for all served parties, but participation in the preparation of the
Stipulation/Order: CMC Page 4 of 5 Haynie v. Harris
Case3:10-cv-01255-SI Document51 Filed01/05/12 Page4 of 5
LAW OFFICE OF DONALD KILMER, APC
1645 Willow St., Suite 150, San Jose, CA 95125
Vc: (408) 264-8489 Fx: (408) 264-8487
Don@DKLawOffice.com


Joint Case Management Conference Statement is optional for parties served
and/or appearing after January 23, 2012.
4. The motion to dismiss filed by the Rohnert Park defendants, currently set for
February 24, 2012, is reset to April 20, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10,
19 Floor, San Francisco before the Honorable Susan Illston. th
5. Any cross-motions shall be filed in accordance with the local rules.
6. For this set of motions to be heard on April 20, 2012, any opposition
memorandums and/or supporting documents shall be filed on or before March
30, 2012 and any reply memorandums shall be filed on or before April 6,
2012.
7. The plaintiffs are ordered to serve this Case Management Order with any
complaint and summons that is served on any potential defendants who are
not parties as of the date of this Order.
Date:
United States District Judge
__________________

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson.
"a system of licensing the right of
self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause”
Don Kilmer
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 01-19-2012, 2:06 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,018
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

Well those laws can't possibly be vague, it's not like they keep wrongfully arresting people...
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 01-19-2012, 2:41 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is there a pool on how many defendants will be included by the time we get a ruling? Its getting kind of ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 01-19-2012, 6:08 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

^ Ridiculous laws produce ridiculous results, as a famous quotable magician observed.
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 02-12-2012, 5:52 PM
Tier One Arms's Avatar
Tier One Arms Tier One Arms is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 2,599
iTrader: 141 / 100%
Default

Bump for any updates?
__________________
For the lowest prices on Noveske, Geissele, Vltor, Battlecomp, Battle Arms Development and other high-end firearms and parts, visit: Tieronearms.com
661-292-0945
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 03-02-2012, 2:01 PM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Did the Cotati action get filed in time?
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 03-02-2012, 2:12 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,957
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesa Tactical View Post
Did the Cotati action get filed in time?
I believe it has. Don't wanna bother Don & crew right now, they've just started mooting for Nordyke Orals.
__________________

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
  #289  
Old 03-02-2012, 3:18 PM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Just recapped the case.

Filed and Motion to relate cases was approved.
__________________


Last edited by Crom; 03-02-2012 at 3:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 03-03-2012, 9:23 AM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Winning!
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 03-03-2012, 10:24 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Crom - thanks for RECAPing! Been a bit busy over the last week.

Things are about to get very interesting in this case. One of the most interesting questions is what the exact timing will be from the Illinois Supreme Court on the AW challenge there. We're just at the beginning of the window that we could see their opinion and it extends about 90 days out.

-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
  #292  
Old 03-03-2012, 1:53 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,009
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

great news ...one question...is this court case at the district level or is it at at the 9th circuit of appeals?
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 03-03-2012, 2:59 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,151
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag6.8 View Post
great news ...one question...is this court case at the district level or is it at at the 9th circuit of appeals?
U. S. District - Northern California, San Francisco/Oakland Division
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 03-03-2012, 9:15 PM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 346
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Crom - thanks for RECAPing! Been a bit busy over the last week.

Things are about to get very interesting in this case. One of the most interesting questions is what the exact timing will be from the Illinois Supreme Court on the AW challenge there. We're just at the beginning of the window that we could see their opinion and it extends about 90 days out.

-Gene
Do the the Illinois lawyers know about Haynie, et al., v Harris, et al.,? (re confusion, false arrests, ambiguous statutes,...?)
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.

Unconsciously borrowed from: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." — Judge Learned Hand

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 03-03-2012, 11:24 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Arma View Post
Do the the Illinois lawyers know about Haynie, et al., v Harris, et al.,? (re confusion, false arrests, ambiguous statutes,...?)
I am not an attorney.

I have asked on here in the past about communication between the second amendment civil rights lawyers with regard to the myriad of cases underway around the country. Do they talk to each other?

When it comes to criminal defense lawyers handling gun cases, do they know to call Calguns or SAF? If they can possibly steer them from making bad case law it would be nice to have a lawyer with no firearms knowledge be able to talk to the right people.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 03-04-2012, 10:19 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Arma View Post
Do the the Illinois lawyers know about Haynie, et al., v Harris, et al.,? (re confusion, false arrests, ambiguous statutes,...?)
Certainly many of the Amici are aware. However, we decided not to file an Amicus for specific strategic reasons.

Communication amongst the various (serious) lawyers is pretty good in this space.

-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
  #297  
Old 05-03-2012, 9:40 PM
monk's Avatar
monk monk is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,617
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Bump. So I saw the latest entry by Crom and saw that they were supposed to have a conference on March 30th. I then saw a schedule that showed another conference for May 25th. Any new updates?

Calendar: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/CEO/cfd.aspx?7133
__________________


NRA Member
SAF Member


Quote:
A tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 05-03-2012, 9:57 PM
Chunker's Avatar
Chunker Chunker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Gardena, CA
Posts: 341
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

giggidy!
__________________
My name is Chunker...I wear a hat.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 01-31-2013, 6:30 PM
monk's Avatar
monk monk is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,617
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Update, looks like a hearing on Feb 8th at 3PM.
__________________


NRA Member
SAF Member


Quote:
A tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 01-31-2013, 9:45 PM
ExtremeX's Avatar
ExtremeX ExtremeX is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 7,075
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Mr. Hoffman

Thank you for your hard work. I will be sending another donation to CGF soon.

I urge other Calguns members to do the same if you like what you read here, and like the work CGF is doing.

These contributions help all of us.

Thanks Again
Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 02-01-2013, 6:12 AM
Stainned Stainned is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 826
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Great Job! Thank you very much.
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 02-14-2014, 11:26 AM
richshark richshark is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Fantastic Job! One question, please...

Hi,
GREAT job! Thanks so much for your efforts. I'm not sure about the conflicting info that I'm observing, though. On this CALGUN.NET site "CA Rifle Ban Interactive Chart" is still shows "Illegal" to AR-15's (and they are specifically listed in the Roos bill). But the Haynie case specifically refers to a Colt AR-15 as being the subject of the case. Is a Colt AR-15 with a Bullet Button now legal according to the Haynie case? If so, they will the CA Rifle Ban I Chart be amended?
Thanks again for all of your efforts!
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 02-14-2014, 11:46 AM
ScottsBad ScottsBad is offline
No Prisoners!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,239
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uriah02 View Post
The civil action against the PD?
Concerning the criminal dismissal, well done!
Personally, I don't understand why you are not going after attorney's fees, mental distress, lost work time (if any), and anything else you can think of.

I'm not one to let LEOs off the hook. This has been the way legal ARs have been equipped for several years. It looks like harassment by the cops to me, they are responsible for this, not the firearm owner, and not the Law Firm.

You cannot possibly tell me that this situation has not come up before in CA.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 02-14-2014, 12:06 PM
thayne's Avatar
thayne thayne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

whats the latest on this case?
__________________
Quote:
"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 02-14-2014, 12:36 PM
CortoPasta's Avatar
CortoPasta CortoPasta is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 175
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thayne View Post
whats the latest on this case?
I'm curious to, as people are acting like there was a favorable ruling that I haven't heard about yet
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 02-14-2014, 12:47 PM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 20,475
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Tagged
__________________
•=iii=<(
🎺

Dear autocorrect, I'm really getting tired of your shirt!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
No more stupid threads. you have my word
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
Rule 1 I'll admit I'm a jerk when I post stupid thread.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Shmacher View Post
I'll do the picking.. Name wise .. if you don't mind...
Helmut Shmacher- Formerly lugerdevil666
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 02-14-2014, 12:50 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,069
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

it was revived by a new member wanting clarification on the flowchart, LOL. Nothing to see here!
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 02-14-2014, 1:45 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,151
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Haynie was consolidated with Richards, and ultimately
Quote:
all four cases were consolidated under Haynie v. Harris, Case No.: 3:10-CV-01255 SI, with the remaining case numbers dismissed and the Defendants reserving the right to separate trials.
The docket is here - http://ia700507.us.archive.org/10/it...76.docket.html

Last activity shown was Dec 20 2013, filing an amended complaint
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 02-28-2014, 12:47 AM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 2,679
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Isn't there a hearing today in this case? 02/28/2014.....
__________________

...... you cant have no idea how little I care "

Monte (Tom Selleck) - 'Monte Walsh'

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

John Wayne as John Bernard (J. B.) Books in The Shootist
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 03-01-2014, 8:42 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

We expect the court to grant the motion to dismiss on Lyons grounds (so not at all on the merits.) Lyons is an outlier so (and wrongly applied here) so it should be an interesting appeal.

-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
  #311  
Old 03-01-2014, 9:22 AM
AceGirlsHusband's Avatar
AceGirlsHusband AceGirlsHusband is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,548
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
If a tool is required to remove the magazine, the rifle doesn't have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. It's that simple!
Don't forget that Yee and Steinberg are trying to fix that. And they won't quit.
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 03-01-2014, 10:30 AM
PackingHeatInSDCA PackingHeatInSDCA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

when is anyone going to challenge the BB itself? seems by requiring a BB, they are banning weapons already in common use. can't be legal...
__________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 03-01-2014, 11:03 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,151
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PackingHeatInSDCA View Post
when is anyone going to challenge the BB itself? seems by requiring a BB, they are banning weapons already in common use. can't be legal...
If by BB you mean 'Bullet Button' or other magazine locking device, CA is not requiring it, so there's nothing there to directly challenge.

The magazine locking device is a way to go around the SB 23 'feature' problem, which is triggered by a gun accepting a 'detachable magazine'. The locking device modifies the gun so any magazine inserted requires a tool to remove - thus no longer meeting the legal definition of 'capable of accepting a detachable magazine'.

See also the Calguns Foundation Wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/No...able_magazines
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 03-01-2014, 12:03 PM
PackingHeatInSDCA PackingHeatInSDCA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you for the info. Is anyone going after the SB 23 'feature' problem? Or is that what this suit is about (in some way I don't understand). IANAL

tx
__________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 03-01-2014, 1:59 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yawn. Haynie is going nowhere slowly lol.

And Lyons, a US supreme court opinion that sets forth the legal standard for the relief requested by the plaintiffs which they haven't come anywhere close to meeting, is an "outlier." That's rich.
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 03-01-2014, 2:45 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,151
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PackingHeatInSDCA View Post
Thank you for the info. Is anyone going after the SB 23 'feature' problem? Or is that what this suit is about (in some way I don't understand). IANAL

tx
Yes, that is a large part of this suit, which challenges the 'assault weapon' ban. See also the Calguns Foundation Wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Harris
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 03-01-2014, 3:33 PM
PackingHeatInSDCA PackingHeatInSDCA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

thank you for the 411.
__________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 03-02-2014, 11:56 AM
glocksmith's Avatar
glocksmith glocksmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Earth.
Posts: 530
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Hoffmang is the MAN! I guess I need to make a donation.
__________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson.
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 03-19-2014, 1:15 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,891
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I took some solace in the first 10 or so pages from the Sunnyvale mag ban case where the judge said AR15's and standard capacity mags are covered by the 2A - up until the part where they said the mags could be banned anyway.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 03-19-2014, 3:49 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 769
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

For anyone that missed the note in another thread, this case was just lost. Here is the note from FGG:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
It was just tossed out on a pleading motion because the plaintiffs were unable to allege facts meeting the applicable legal standard for the relief sought.
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
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 3:06 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.