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
  #1  
Old 04-28-2017, 5:06 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,368
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default WIESE v Becerra, Large Capacity mags, US Dist Ct Eastern (Fresno) Case 1:17-at-00346

Per FPC announcement,
Quote:
WILLIAM WIESE, an individual; JEREMIAH
MORRIS, an individual; LANCE COWLEY, an
individual; SHERMAN MACASTON, an
individual; FRANK FEDEREAU, an individual;
ALAN NORMANDY, an individual; TODD
NIELSEN, an individual; THE CALGUNS
FOUNDATION; FIREARMS POLICY
COALITION; FIREARMS POLICY
FOUNDATION; SECOND AMENDMENT
FOUNDATION,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of California; MARTHA
SUPERNOR, in her official capacity as Acting
Chief of the Department of Justice Bureau of
Firearms,
Defendants
Quote:
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against
Defendants, and pray for relief as follows:

1. For declaratory judgment and relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that California Penal Code sections 32310, 32390, and sections 32445 and 32450 are unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment;

2. For declaratory judgment and relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that California
Penal Code sections 32310, 32390, and sections 32445 and 32450 are unconstitutional and
violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments;

3. For declaratory judgment and relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that California Penal Code sections 32310, 32390, and sections 32445 and 32450 are indefinite, vague and uncertain, and therefore unenforceable, and also, on the grounds that it is not clear which version of these statutes (i.e., the version passed pursuant to SB 1446 or Prop. 63), and the exceptions thereto, may apply;

4. For injunctive relief, consistent with declaratory relief sought herein, enjoining defendants, and their officers, agents and employees, from enforcing any of the provisions of California Penal Code sections 32310, 32390, and sections 32445 and 32450;

5. For costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable law; and

6. For all such relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1493395430
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. 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
  #2  
Old 04-28-2017, 5:10 PM
Sutcliffe Sutcliffe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Campbell, CA
Posts: 6,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default The very Same Bill Weiss?

Always liked that guy.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-28-2017, 5:26 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sutcliffe View Post
Always liked that guy.

Meh. He's ok.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-28-2017, 5:48 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 973
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Go get 'em!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-28-2017, 6:32 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 867
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is it a coincidence that this lawsuit came out at the same time an the NRA's assault weapons case?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-28-2017, 6:35 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,404
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What if we could just get the 9th to stipulate that they will deny this case on en banc so we could go straight to SCOTUS without the 10 year wait...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-28-2017, 6:48 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,530
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Oh goodie! Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are trying to stay relevant by secretly filing a lawsuit challenging the LCM law without telling anyone else. So glad they consulted with CRPA / Michel's office, especially considering they sent out a call for plaintiffs a few days ago...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1328911
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-28-2017, 6:54 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,771
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Oh goodie! Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are trying to stay relevant by secretly filing a lawsuit challenging the LCM law without telling anyone else. So glad they consulted with CRPA / Michel's office, especially considering they sent out a call for plaintiffs a few days ago...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1328911
You're just being ridiculous now.

It's high time all this gets resolved and the SAF is also backing it

If the NRA wanted to go after hi caps they could have. They lost the last one.

Right now everyone has a place at the table and I have no allegiance to anyone

Last edited by taperxz; 04-28-2017 at 6:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-28-2017, 7:20 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Oh goodie! Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are trying to stay relevant by secretly filing a lawsuit challenging the LCM law without telling anyone else. So glad they consulted with CRPA / Michel's office, especially considering they sent out a call for plaintiffs a few days ago...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1328911
Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You're just being ridiculous now.

It's high time all this gets resolved and the SAF is also backing it

If the NRA wanted to go after hi caps they could have. They lost the last one.

Right now everyone has a place at the table and I have no allegiance to anyone
Taperxz, Agreed; anyone that fights for OUR rights, is on OUR team! I'll support both actions, there are plenty of battles to fight here....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-28-2017, 7:54 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 782
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Godspeed gentlemen!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-28-2017, 7:59 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I can't wait to see FGG's criticism of this case while he simultaneously remains silent about Rupp ...

__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-28-2017 at 8:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-28-2017, 8:26 PM
USMCM16A2 USMCM16A2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,000
iTrader: 96 / 100%
Default Go get em Bill W.

Go get em Bill. A2
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-28-2017, 8:28 PM
Master_P Master_P is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 210
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How is this any different from Fyock v. Sunnyvale?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-28-2017, 8:34 PM
CalNRA's Avatar
CalNRA CalNRA is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,643
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
This is not rocket surgery.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-28-2017, 8:43 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,771
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalNRA View Post
There hasn't been much good for any gun owner in CA in the last 40 years. Let's face it, even if these CASESgo to SCOTUS, Gorsuch needs help on 2A stuff. He can't do it alone

What's your point?

Last edited by taperxz; 04-28-2017 at 8:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-28-2017, 9:08 PM
The Tiger's Avatar
The Tiger The Tiger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Mordor aka Los Angeles
Posts: 1,201
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Well hopefully we get a new SC justice and a few Trump appointments at the 9th before this case gets that far. Feeling pessimistic with just Gorsuch. We need to pick up one more robe.
__________________

NRA Benefactor
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-28-2017, 9:10 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,530
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Resources are scarce. There is no excuse for not coordinating, or at the very least communicating, so that efforts are not duplicated. There were a lot of bad laws passed last year, more than enough for us to handle to not have to double up.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-28-2017, 9:25 PM
Dark Hunt's Avatar
Dark Hunt Dark Hunt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 249
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It took more than a few days to get this organized, the timing is probably because it took a couple of months after Trump won.

You don't write these things in a couple of days if you are actually trying to win.
__________________
NRA Endowment Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-28-2017, 9:34 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,653
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Wasn't this already settled in the Sunnyvale case or are they just trying to keep preban mags?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-28-2017, 9:48 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 3,540
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I'm optimistic about this because of the fact that we haven't been knocked out just yet, and are quite far from it. The California Legislature has a lot more to worry about now, than they did before November 8. Remember, these cases are designed to go all the way to 1 First St NE.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-28-2017, 11:02 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,961
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm not sure I like you using that smiley...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-28-2017, 11:08 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,976
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Easy, guys.

I will just say the case was ready to file on its own merits.

I don't care about "competition" just want things to win.

If other good cases develop, fine. Worse comes to worse they get merged
(Richards, Peruta).

Remember July 1 mag date limit is "not that far off".

Separate from CGF status, if I as an individual had been asked by any other competent gun org to be a plaintiff - this includes NRA, etc. GOA, or anybody but CAFR or NAGR - I'd've been glad to be part.
__________________

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
  #23  
Old 04-28-2017, 11:53 PM
MrEd's Avatar
MrEd MrEd is offline
roaming the galaxy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: city by the bay
Posts: 660
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Bill is a good guy , he has been in the "game" for a long time and I wish him all the success in the world with this because if he wins then we ALL win .
I had the pleasure to meet him a few times and always enjoyed our conversations .
Do some people have some disagreements with him ? I am sure some do , do I have a dog in that fight . But having met the guy and even enjoyed lunch with him and a few other of the "right people" I know his heart is in the right place so Bill , go get'em !!!!!!
__________________
Justice without force is powerless ; force without justice is Tyrannical
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-29-2017, 9:09 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 538
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good to see the challenge, but a little disappointed that it's not as full throated as the AWCA case. There's a point in the complaint where they start to develop a good equal protection case by mentioning that those with guard cards can have large capacity mags for self defense while on duty, but then they never truly develop it further and go after the other separate but equal classes with exemptions.

Legally by USSC precedent, the only reason anybody is armed is for their own personal self defense as there exists no duty to defend another individual even for police officers.To me that was a missed argument that should have been made because you fight a law on as many fronts as you can - you never know which strategy is going to be the one that convinces a judge your argument is the right one.

I also kinda wish we had a slightly more diverse set of plaintiffs. No offense to Bill and the others, but a woman or two or some other form of "diversity" to add to the complaint might have made the freedom haters on the court more sympathetic to the case like we saw in Caetano. I hate that that has to even be considered as a factor, but with the courts being the way they are... Still, I hope this get somewhere that previous challenges haven't.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-29-2017, 10:04 AM
GM4spd's Avatar
GM4spd GM4spd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 5,134
iTrader: 101 / 100%
Default

__________________
NRA LIFE (1974)

Since 1971 using/abusing my Colt ARs(thru thousands of rds) some Full Auto----no spares required.

I had a commission/USNR from 71-77 but neverconsider myself a Veteran.MyDad+4uncles/USMC/WW2/Korea/Vietnam. My Grandfather US Army WW1. No heroes,just regular folks--they were Veterans.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-29-2017, 10:17 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,961
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Easy, guys.
^^^ This.

There is some infighting with various organizations but overall there is a common goal and we are all on the same side. Stepping on each other's toes is something that should be kept in-house - it will cause hurt feelings and genuine disagreements, but it shouldn't affect the outcome of the legal battles.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-29-2017, 8:52 PM
GW's Avatar
GW GW is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 14,431
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Best of luck to Bill and the rest.
His fight is our fight
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-30-2017, 2:20 AM
FalconLair's Avatar
FalconLair FalconLair is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Summerlin, NV.
Posts: 2,744
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Easy, guys.

I will just say the case was ready to file on its own merits.

I don't care about "competition" just want things to win.

If other good cases develop, fine. Worse comes to worse they get merged
(Richards, Peruta).

Remember July 1 mag date limit is "not that far off".

Separate from CGF status, if I as an individual had been asked by any other competent gun org to be a plaintiff - this includes NRA, etc. GOA, or anybody but CAFR or NAGR - I'd've been glad to be part.

will you be seeking an injunction?
__________________
Yesterday the Devil whispered in my ear, "You're not strong enough to weather the storm."

Today I whispered in the Devil's ear, "I AM THE STORM."


Quote:
Originally Posted by someoneeasy View Post
I got eager cuz I love me some 20"
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-30-2017, 3:25 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,368
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconLair View Post
will you be seeking an injunction?
First post, item 4 in the quote.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. 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
  #30  
Old 04-30-2017, 3:13 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
I'm not sure I like you using that smiley...
Thought it would be oddly appropriate here.

Frankly, I'd love to see FGG comment on this in a timely fashion, such that those bringing the suit can alter it to account for what FGG's comments suggest are the weaknesses in it.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-30-2017, 3:27 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Thought it would be oddly appropriate here.

Frankly, I'd love to see FGG comment on this in a timely fashion, such that those bringing the suit can alter it to account for what FGG's comments suggest are the weaknesses in it.
That supposes FGG wants to comment in time for something to actually get done, instead of knowing every move of the game before it is played.

Actually I'd love to see FGG comment on anything, including this:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywo...len-from-home/
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-30-2017, 4:08 PM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,708
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

A 4500lb TL30x6 safe only costs what, $10K, a fool and his money is soon parted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Actually I'd love to see FGG comment on anything, including this:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywo...len-from-home/
__________________
"I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." Matthew Quigley
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-30-2017, 5:03 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,653
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Wasn't this already settled in the Sunnyvale case or are they just trying to keep preban mags?
anyone
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-01-2017, 7:30 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 538
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
anyone
From the complaint it looks like it's a blanket challenge to the restriction on LCMs, but with greater emphasis on being able to retain possession of those already owned.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-01-2017, 9:15 AM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,138
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post

Right now everyone has a place at the table and I have no allegiance to anyone
If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-02-2017, 10:48 AM
Swatter911 Swatter911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: N ID
Posts: 398
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm very disappointed in the apparent lack of coordination with CRPA/NRA on this filing.

Divided we fall.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-02-2017, 12:06 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swatter911 View Post
I'm very disappointed in the apparent lack of coordination with CRPA/NRA on this filing.

Divided we fall.
Why would anyone "unite" with people who've adopted a strategy doomed to failure?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-02-2017, 12:27 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Why would anyone "unite" with people who've adopted a strategy mount a legal challenge in CA/9th Circuit doomed to failure?
FTFY
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-02-2017, 1:33 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,653
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus View Post
From the complaint it looks like it's a blanket challenge to the restriction on LCMs, but with greater emphasis on being able to retain possession of those already owned.
So we are going to lose the 2A challenge because the 9th are settled this in the sunnyvale case...
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-02-2017, 1:58 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I had the same question - wouldn't District judges just dismiss citing Fyock??
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
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 11:21 AM.




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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.