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 11-19-2013, 9:27 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default SFVPOA v SF (2A Protections for 10+Round Magazines)

San Francisco Veteran Police Officers' Association v. San Francisco

Issue: NRA sponsored challenge to San Francisco's 2013 ban on possession of lawfully acquired standard capacity magazines.

Current Status as of 2/13/2013: Prelim. Inj. hx on 2/11/2014 is taken under submission; CMC 2/19/2014. Discovery: 5/16/2014, Motions: 5/29/2014, Pretrial: 7/9/2014, Bench trial: 7/14/2014.

1/22/2014 - Prelim. Inj. hx set for 10:00 AM on 2/11/2014 in Ctrm. 8, 19th Flr., 450GG, San Francisco
11/22/2013 - Case reassigned to Judge William Alsup.
11/19/2013 - ADR order; CMC set for 2/19/2014.
11/19/2013 - Complaint.


Trail Court: N.D. Cal.
Case No.: 3:13-cv-05351-WHA
Docket: http://ia601005.us.archive.org/5/ite...52.docket.html

Other links:
CGN discussion thread in Cal. 2A Activism
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).

Last edited by fizux; 02-17-2014 at 3:58 PM.. Reason: updates
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-19-2013, 9:34 AM
cire raeb cire raeb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Kalfornia
Posts: 447
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just move the stuff out of the city until this blows over. If I live there I will just ignore the law.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-19-2013, 10:30 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cire raeb View Post
Just move the stuff out of the city until this blows over. If I live there I will just ignore the law.
If only it weren't illegal for SF residents to lend LCMs to friends for storage outside of SF until the lawsuit blows over...
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-19-2013, 10:36 AM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Last night on KQED news, the talked about the two lawsuits (the one already filed against SF, and the one about to be filed against Sunnyvale, once the election is certified).

They had a short interview with Chuck. Someone should put up a transcript of that interview, because it contains some interesting statements about the Heller-style right to self defense, and availability of high-capacity magazines. I don't want to type that in from memory, because it should be accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-19-2013, 10:59 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Looking forward to San Francisco doing the usual payout to the NRA.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-19-2013, 11:05 AM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If SF and Sunnyvale were smart they would dump the new laws and not fight this. If they lose it will have huge implications not only statewide but nationally. I don't believe that they will be properly prepared to win in federal court. It seems at the very least they will lose on the basis of state pre-emption but the law suit is on the basis of the 2A.

Who knows, in the future we may be thanking the idiots in SF for defeating the state magazine limit ban and preventing any future national magazine limit ban.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-19-2013, 12:29 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,665
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
If only it weren't illegal for SF residents to lend LCMs to friends for storage outside of SF until the lawsuit blows over...
I'd take a small locked case, stuff them in there, sign a rental agreement with said friend for $1 to rent a small area in their closet, then place my mags into my newly rented space.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-19-2013, 12:40 PM
CMonfort's Avatar
CMonfort CMonfort is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 462
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Official Lawsuit Accouncement

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...magazines.aspx

California: Lawsuit Filed Against San Francisco Ban on Possession of Standard Capacity Firearm Magazines

Today, the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association (SFPOA) has filed a lawsuit, supported by the National Rifle Association, in federal court challenging San Francisco’s recent ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The Second Amendment-based legal challenge is part of a campaign of nationwide litigation filed and supported by a variety of law enforcement officers and associations to confirm that the Second Amendment protects these common standard-capacity magazines for self-defense and sport shooting.

Today, standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are commonly possessed by millions of law-abiding citizens for a variety of lawful purposes in the United States. These purposes include target practice, shooting competitions, hunting, and, most importantly, self-defense. The Supreme Court has affirmed that self-defense is the “central component” of the Second Amendment.

The San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association represents the retired officers from the San Francisco Police Department. SFPOA is joined in this lawsuit by several individual San Francisco residents who wish to possess these magazines for self-defense or sporting purposes.

The majority of law enforcement in the United States acknowledges that banning standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds will not increase public safety. There is now a growing trend of law enforcement organizations actively opposing and challenging these measures in court. In Colorado, a broad coalition of law enforcement officials filed suit against that state’s recently-enacted ban on common magazines. Earlier this year in New York, the State Sheriffs Association, the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund and individual law enforcement officers filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the State’s ban on common rifles and magazines. And in Connecticut, a coalition of individual law enforcement officers and the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund filed another legal brief in support of pending challenge to similar laws.

The San Francisco ordinance essentially allows confiscation of any prohibited magazines and, because of state laws restricting their transfer, they cannot be replaced. San Francisco’s ordinance is set to take effect on December 8, 2013. Residents, including retired police officers, will then have until March 8, 2014 to turn their lawfully-possessed magazines over to the police, remove them from the City in the few cases where it might be legal, or transfer them to a licensed firearms dealer.

The lawyers at Michel & Associates representing the plaintiffs will seek an injunction to prevent San Francisco from enforcing this law. Plaintiffs are prepared to appeal this case as high as necessary to have the City’s misguided ordinance declared unconstitutional. This Second Amendment issue may ultimately be addressed by the United States Supreme Court.

Firearms equipped with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds have been around for nearly two centuries. Although the San Francisco ordinance incorrectly describes the banned magazines as “large-capacity,” the truth is that magazines with capacities of more than ten rounds are standard for many common handguns and long guns and have been for hundreds of years. Millions of firearms that have been sold in the United States come from the manufacturer with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

As most gun owners already know, standard-capacity magazines hold the number of cartridges the firearm was designed to operate with. Reduced-capacity magazines are those whose capacity is artificially limited from an original design. By allowing residents and visitors to San Francisco to only possess reduced-capacity magazines, San Francisco has arbitrarily limited the number of rounds that its law-abiding residents have to protect themselves and their loved ones. Hunters and sport shooters traveling through San Francisco with these magazines also can be prosecuted, even if they are unaware of this law.

The City’s decision to arbitrarily limit its residents to magazines holding a maximum of ten rounds endangers the public by giving violent criminals an advantage and decreasing the likelihood that a victim will survive a criminal attack. Of course, criminals who wish to carry out violent attacks will not be thwarted by the City’s restriction. Criminals will simply continue to do what they have always done – buy and possess magazines on the black market or carry multiple firearms to complete their violent crimes.

A ballot measure enacting a similar ordinance was recently passed in Sunnyvale, California. Litigation supported by the NRA is already in the works to challenge that law when the Sunnyvale City Council certifies the vote and the measure then formally becomes law.

To assist in the fight against these attacks on gun owners’ rights in California, please donate to the NRA Legal Action Project today. For a summary of the many actions the NRA’s legal team at Michel & Associates has taken on behalf of California gun owners, click here.

Last edited by CMonfort; 11-19-2013 at 12:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-19-2013, 3:24 PM
TheBest's Avatar
TheBest TheBest is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 978
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
Last night on KQED news, the talked about the two lawsuits (the one already filed against SF, and the one about to be filed against Sunnyvale, once the election is certified).

They had a short interview with Chuck. Someone should put up a transcript of that interview, because it contains some interesting statements about the Heller-style right to self defense, and availability of high-capacity magazines. I don't want to type that in from memory, because it should be accurate.
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/1...utmk=182110629

Last edited by TheBest; 11-19-2013 at 3:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-19-2013, 5:16 PM
CMonfort's Avatar
CMonfort CMonfort is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 462
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default NRA Lawsuit Filed in SF to Confirm Protections for Standard-Capacity Magazines

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...magazines.aspx

Official case thread here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=854136
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-19-2013, 5:21 PM
GoatLovin GoatLovin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 764
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Fingers and toes crossed.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-19-2013, 5:21 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you.
__________________
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
  #13  
Old 11-19-2013, 5:26 PM
zimmj zimmj is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 72
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Lets hope we get a ruling in our favor.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-19-2013, 5:32 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 95492
Posts: 17,997
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

i originally thought this was just low hanging fruit using the state preemption but realized it will help with the misinformed about the large capacity nuisance text in the law
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-19-2013, 5:42 PM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is this just about illegal taking of pre-ban magazines or would winning this case also strike down the state law as well?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-19-2013, 5:57 PM
hornswaggled's Avatar
hornswaggled hornswaggled is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,653
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

GOOD.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member
SAF Defender's Club
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-19-2013, 6:03 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,110
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm eager to see where this goes. I'm sure I will be frustrated by the pace, but that is to be expected with our court system.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-19-2013, 6:26 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,762
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Wheeeee!

It will be nice for SF to write NRA more checks.
__________________

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
  #19  
Old 11-19-2013, 6:30 PM
SanPedroShooter's Avatar
SanPedroShooter SanPedroShooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles Harbor
Posts: 9,739
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Warm up that check writing pen.

I hope.
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-19-2013, 6:41 PM
Ronin2 Ronin2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Newport Beach/PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia)
Posts: 5,688
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default A challenge to you all......put your money where your keyboards are...

After reading the news of this litigation, I just made a $150 donation to the NRA-ILA Legal Action Project (proof of donation in link below). I Challenge everyone else, especially all the non NRA members who erroneously claim the NRA has done nothing in California, to meet or exceed my donation. Those of you who are not NRA members and do not donate SOMETHING.... SHAME ON ALL YOU HYPOCRITES!!!!

https://www.nrailadonate.org/forms/t...013LegalAction


Here is the link to the NRA-ILA Legal Action Project donation page for those willing to step up and put their money where their keyboards are:

https://www.nrailadonate.org/forms/d...013LegalAction

Last edited by Ronin2; 11-19-2013 at 6:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-19-2013, 6:48 PM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,870
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cire raeb View Post
Just move the stuff out of the city until this blows over. If I live there I will just ignore the law.

Like a BOSS!

__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-19-2013, 6:50 PM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,870
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
If SF and Sunnyvale were smart they would dump the new laws and not fight this. If they lose it will have huge implications not only statewide but nationally. I don't believe that they will be properly prepared to win in federal court. It seems at the very least they will lose on the basis of state pre-emption but the law suit is on the basis of the 2A.

Who knows, in the future we may be thanking the idiots in SF for defeating the state magazine limit ban and preventing any future national magazine limit ban.
That won't happen in Sunnyvale, the politicians and supporters of Measure C lied through their teeth with shiny, forked tongues about how there the city will not be sued.

Well I guess they didn't lie. Technically they said that no city has ever been sued for an ordinance like this. As they left the fact out that no city has ever had an ordinance like this before makes it deceptive and therefore a lie.
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-19-2013, 8:57 PM
AlexDD AlexDD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBest View Post
That Mayor is just using this to make a name for himself for illusions of hire office in a demographic that will reward him for it plus free publicity and notoriety

Many local elected officials believe that they should hold some higher office. Fixing streets, keeping a city running smooth is boring for many. They need an issue with a spotlight. He found his
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-19-2013, 10:16 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 443
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by POLICESTATE View Post
Well I guess they didn't lie. Technically they said that no city has ever been sued for an ordinance like this. As they left the fact out that no city has ever had an ordinance like this before makes it deceptive and therefore a lie.
Actually, the city of Richmond did have such an ordinance on the books a few years ago, but a letter from our office demanding that they repeal it with a complaint attached provoked them to comply. So, while a city has never been technically sued for an ordinance like this, the only city that had one repealed it based on our arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-19-2013, 10:43 PM
Darto Darto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,019
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Facing a veteran police organization in a lawsuit is a public relations nightmare. Love it!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-19-2013, 10:48 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darto View Post
Facing a veteran police organization in a lawsuit is a public relations nightmare. Love it!
^This
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-19-2013, 10:54 PM
SVTPete83's Avatar
SVTPete83 SVTPete83 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 237
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darto View Post
Facing a veteran police organization in a lawsuit is a public relations nightmare. Love it!
Hells yes. I can't wait to see what the press will say about it.

Oh wait. The press is liberal. They won't cover it.

On any account, having the police on our side will definitely help!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-19-2013, 10:58 PM
baffomet's Avatar
baffomet baffomet is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 476
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
If only it weren't illegal for SF residents to lend LCMs to friends for storage outside of SF until the lawsuit blows over...
What if you broke them down to rebuild kits?
__________________
"Mistaking consequence for cause, I call this reason's intrinsic form of corruption." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-19-2013, 11:11 PM
CMonfort's Avatar
CMonfort CMonfort is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 462
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Unfortunately, the City bans them whether assembled or disassembled. Take a look at the text of the ordinance attached to the Complaint.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-20-2013, 7:49 AM
hardlyworking hardlyworking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 966
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This hit local NPR station KCLU this morning covering central coast SLO through Thousand Oaks.

They mentioned the suit, relevant ordinance, and that the "NRA" was arguing that banning >10 mags "gave criminals the edge"

No mention of any "anti" slant in the 20-second blurb that I could discern.

Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-20-2013, 8:57 AM
Ronin2 Ronin2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Newport Beach/PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia)
Posts: 5,688
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Shameful bump in your face
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-20-2013, 9:22 AM
johnny_22's Avatar
johnny_22 johnny_22 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Valley of Heart's Delight
Posts: 2,178
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default SF Chronicle coverage

Can be found here:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...es-4994726.php
__________________
Please, join the NRA.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-20-2013, 9:28 AM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol3 View Post
Is this just about illegal taking of pre-ban magazines or would winning this case also strike down the state law as well?
This case would develop the law with regard to Second Amendment protection for firearm magazines. While it would not automatically strike down the state law, which isn't at issue in this case, if successful it would certainly open the door to such a challenge.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-20-2013, 9:37 AM
TimRB TimRB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central CA
Posts: 689
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think the fear is that this law, if it is vacated, will fall under the state's preemption blanket, thus removing any 2A issue and leaving the state magazine ban intact.

Tim
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-20-2013, 9:43 AM
One Nation Under One Nation Under is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTPete83 View Post
Hells yes. I can't wait to see what the press will say about it.

Oh wait. The press is liberal. They won't cover it.

On any account, having the police on our side will definitely help!
http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-n...e-capacity-law

read this article.....NO mention of the police officers association
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-20-2013, 10:18 AM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimRB View Post
I think the fear is that this law, if it is vacated, will fall under the state's preemption blanket, thus removing any 2A issue and leaving the state magazine ban intact.

Tim
If the fear is that the Federal Court will go out of it's way to invalidate a state law based on a state law preemption argument that isn't made by either party, I'd say that fear is entirely unfounded.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-20-2013, 10:24 AM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darto View Post
Facing a veteran police organization in a lawsuit is a public relations nightmare. Love it!
No, it isn't. Everyone knows that the real plaintiff is the NRA, that the NRA is footing the bill, and that the NRA is represented by their regular counsel. The pro-forma plaintiffs (three individuals and the veteran police officer's association) are just that … pro forma. That's completely common practice in constitutional lawsuits.

If you listen to the press coverage, they all talk about SF being sued by the NRA.

I'll leave the question of who is suffering a public relations nightmare to your imagination.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-20-2013, 10:33 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

I'm curious if this is going to be one of those lawsuits that drags on for years. How does the law effect the citizens in the meantime if so?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-20-2013, 11:18 AM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Unlikely to drag on forever; the 9th circuit is faster than the ones back east. Also, this one looks like it could be resolved at the motions stage, as the facts are unlikely to be in dispute, and it is a question of law.

In interesting question is whether the plaintiffs want to or can get an injunction to prevent enforcement while this action is pending. This is interesting, because it may foretell the ultimate fate of this case.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-20-2013, 11:52 AM
hardlyworking hardlyworking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 966
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yup they didn't mention anything about state preemption because that's the back-up plan.

SF *should* know better, they are just trying to squeek one past us and with all due justice I hope it gets curb-stomped while giving 2A magazine protection jurisprudence in our courts.

Big thumbs up CMonfort!
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 2:27 AM.




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.