Miller v. Becerra, SDCA - Challenging the ban on "assault weapons"

[Bolt_Action]

Originally Posted by dogcatcher

Does anyone know when we can expect a verdict from the 9th circuit panel?

No.

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by dogcatcher

Does anyone know when we can expect a verdict from the 9th circuit panel?

Anytime after the 23rd I think, but actually when who knows, but for sure nothing before the 23rd at least.

[M60A1Rise]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

I agree, but as a competitive shooter, I need to be able to transport my free state configuration AR to matches around the state without worrying about some young traffic cop seizing them because they don't know if it's legal or not.
By having it registered, it can be looked up in the registry and show up as legally registered to me and since it's an AW, there are no configuration issues to worry about if the gun is legal or not other than NFA issues that apply to ALL guns equally.

I'm not retiring in CA so there's no issue of me not being able to sell them.
I'll be able to sell them or bequeath them when I am too old to enjoy them myself.

Not being an *** BUT do you think a LEO will have the equipment let alone an updated system to check that while on the road ? You know good and well it will be confiscation and come back a later date because that's just the way it works. So now you're delayed to a match , take time off to ge pick up LEGAL firearm and possibly miss work days ? That's just criminal imho. No need to register , it's already in a system when you DROS.

[Dirk Tungsten]

Originally Posted by M60A1Rise

Not being an *** BUT do you think a LEO will have the equipment let alone an updated system to check that while on the road ? You know good and well it will be confiscation and come back a later date because that's just the way it works. So now you're delayed to a match , take time off to ge pick up LEGAL firearm and possibly miss work days ? That's just criminal imho. No need to register , it's already in a system when you DROS.

Yes? I'm pretty sure the terminals in any patrol car in the state will allow an officer to run a gun and it's serials in the AFS, including RAWs. If I'm wrong on this one of the LEOs in here can correct me.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by M60A1Rise

Not being an *** BUT do you think a LEO will have the equipment let alone an updated system to check that while on the road ? You know good and well it will be confiscation and come back a later date because that's just the way it works. So now you're delayed to a match , take time off to ge pick up LEGAL firearm and possibly miss work days ? That's just criminal imho. No need to register , it's already in a system when you DROS.

Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten

Yes? I'm pretty sure the terminals in any patrol car in the state will allow an officer to run a gun and it's serials in the AFS, including RAWs. If I'm wrong on this one of the LEOs in here can correct me.

Dirk is pretty much on point here. Nearly every LEO working on patrol has the ability to run electronic checks from their patrol unit and they will normally do so before making a weapons seizure. No LEO likes to look like a knucklehead when someone else has to clean up their mistakes.

But there will always be a few agencies that are behind the times, and there are remote locations where electronic access is limited.

It's also important to note that Assault Weapon registration information cannot be transmitted over voice radio (the common fallback where digital radio doesn't work - voice radios generally operate on a lower frequency and can still work where higher frequency digital radios don't).

[M60A1Rise]

Thanks , I really didn't think they'd even spend the money on something like that. I thought all those terminals did was wants & warrants maybe car registration.

[sfpcservice]

Originally Posted by M60A1Rise

Thanks , I really didn't think they'd even spend the money on something like that. I thought all those terminals did was wants & warrants maybe car registration.

If the cops terminals are anything like where I work, they are either on an agency specific radio system or are linked via commercial cellular (ours are cell).

What is available on the terminal is up to the agency, the terminals are basically touch screen windows computers. For a time ours had internet access, but someone screwed that up as people do...

So basically they can link to any system the agency wants.

[CandG]

I understand the dislike for a registration requirement, I strongly dislike it as well, and I'm also opposed to any ruling which mandates further registrations for people. But there is a lot of uninformed FUD going on in here right now.

First, yes there have been some DOJ visits. Like AR15Barrels estimates, I'd bet it's less than 200. I've only seen 20 or so documented or claimed occurrences, most of which could have been avoided by simply following directions. That number should be ZERO, I think we all agree with that, but to say or imply that registration will inevitably cause a DOJ raid is nonsense.

Second, yes, most LEO in CA can run a weapons check through their computers in their patrol car. If that's unavailable, they can have dispatch run the serial. In any case, it's not hard to print out a copy of your registration and keep it with your weapon. Personally, I printed like 20 copies and put one with each RAW (inside the grip, or in its case, etc), one in my wallet, and one in each range bag. It's totally ridiculous that I have to do that, but if it helps avoid a "48 hour hold while we sort this out" then it's what I'll begrudgingly do.

Again, I fully agree with everyone's hatred for AW registration, wish it was never a thing, do not want any more of it, and want the existing statutes to be gone; I just want people to be sensible and not spread uninformed fear around, as that doesn't help anyone.

[dogcatcher]

Ve vill need to zee your paperz! This is about CA's assault weapon law, correct? If it is deemed to be an unconstitutional infringement, what argument can you present that registration (at the threat of arrest and loss of rights) IS constitutional. People need to pull their heads out.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by CandG

I understand the dislike for a registration requirement, I strongly dislike it as well, and I'm also opposed to any ruling which mandates further registrations for people. But there is a lot of uninformed FUD going on in here right now.

First, yes there have been some DOJ visits. Like AR15Barrels estimates, I'd bet it's less than 200. I've only seen 20 or so documented or claimed occurrences, most of which could have been avoided by simply following directions. That number should be ZERO, I think we all agree with that, but to say or imply that registration will inevitably cause a DOJ raid is nonsense.

Second, yes, most LEO in CA can run a weapons check through their computers in their patrol car. If that's unavailable, they can have dispatch run the serial. In any case, it's not hard to print out a copy of your registration and keep it with your weapon. Personally, I printed like 20 copies and put one with each RAW (inside the grip, or in its case, etc), one in my wallet, and one in each range bag. It's totally ridiculous that I have to do that, but if it helps avoid a "48 hour hold while we sort this out" then it's what I'll begrudgingly do.

Again, I fully agree with everyone's hatred for AW registration, wish it was never a thing, do not want any more of it, and want the existing statutes to be gone; I just want people to be sensible and not spread uninformed fear around, as that doesn't help anyone.

If the patrol unit's computer isn't working, dispatch cannot transmit any Assault Weapon registration information over a conventional radio. All they can do is confirm that a weapon is unregistered. Please refer to Penal Code section 31105(a).

Where are you coming up with a "48 Hour Hold"? There ain't no such thing (although please note that Penal Code section 18265 requires that firearms seized at Domestic Violence scenes be retained for at least 48 hours, that section is inapplicable in other cases, and given the requirements of section 33850, the time is going to be a couple of months, not 48 hours), and given the requirements of Penal Code section 33850, coupled with the current practices of the California DOJ, it would be impossible to return a weapon from LE custody to it's owner in a 48 hour period.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by RickD427

If the patrol unit's computer isn't working, dispatch cannot transmit any Assault Weapon registration information over a conventional radio. All they can do is confirm that a weapon is unregistered. Please refer to Penal Code section 31105(a).

You're correct that they can't confirm an AW registration over conventional radio (unless a crime is believed to have been committed), however they can confirm over conventional radio that someone does NOT have any AW registration. Which is effectively not that different, unless someone has registered AWs but the weapon in question isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by RickD427

Where are you coming up with a "48 Hour Hold"? There ain't no such thing, and given the requirements of Penal Code section 33850, coupled with the current practices of the California DOJ, it would be impossible to return a weapon from LE custody to it's owner in a 48 hour period.

I meant holding me, not the weapon. I put it in quotes to just mean taken into custody while they confirm my claims, I realize that's a relatively undefined length of time and not specifically 48 hours. Agreed that getting the gun back would be neither quick nor easy, hence why I'd want to avoid that scenario entirely by carrying a copy of my registration confirmation letter.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by dogcatcher

Ve vill need to zee your paperz! This is about CA's assault weapon law, correct? If it is deemed to be an unconstitutional infringement, what argument can you present that registration (at the threat of arrest and loss of rights) IS constitutional. People need to pull their heads out.

I never said it was constitutional. I don't believe it is. But until the courts might strike the law down as unconstitutional, it's still an enforceable law.

[IrishJoe3]

Originally Posted by RickD427

If the patrol unit's computer isn't working, dispatch cannot transmit any Assault Weapon registration information over a conventional radio. All they can do is confirm that a weapon is unregistered. Please refer to Penal Code section 31105(a).

d.

Huh I'll be damned. Once again Rick I'm impressed by your knowledge.

In practice though dispatch would call the officer on the radio and request a phone call at which point dispatcher would advise the officers so a pretty easy workaround to make sure the field officer is informed

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by IrishJoe3

Huh I'll be damned. Once again Rick I'm impressed by your knowledge.

In practice though dispatch would call the officer on the radio and request a phone call at which point dispatcher would advise the officers so a pretty easy workaround to make sure the field officer is informed

Joe,

Thanks much for the kind words. I got yelled at a lot during my working days when I got stuff wrong, and eventually I learned.

There are a lot of work-arounds. A cell phone call is the easiest. But back when I was working patrol, there were no cellphones. I was a watch commander at one of our stations when we transitioned from the second-generation computer dispatch to the third-generation and we were the test station. There were a lot of problems and the system often crashed. One deputy suggested putting blue lights on the telephone poles so that if the dispatcher need to contact the deputy, they'd turn on the blue light and deputy would know to call in (that's how we did dispatch in the 30's and 40's). In training, I had the honor of crashing the system when I tested it's "Driving Directions" function. I requested a driving route from our Lancaster Station to our Avalon Station. The instructor never forgave me.

As "CandG" pointed out, there are also a couple of exceptions to the statute.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by CandG

I meant holding me, not the weapon. I put it in quotes to just mean taken into custody while they confirm my claims, I realize that's a relatively undefined length of time and not specifically 48 hours. Agreed that getting the gun back would be neither quick nor easy, hence why I'd want to avoid that scenario entirely by carrying a copy of my registration confirmation letter.

OK, now I got you better.

But there is still no basis to hold a person for 48 hours in order to verify claims.

Terry v Ohio provides a basis for a temporary field detention of a subject based on reasonable suspicion that they are involved in criminal activity. The possession of Assault Weapon(s) would, IMHO, meet the "Reasonable Suspicion" standard to permit such a detention while their registration status is checked. There are no firm time limits on how long a Terry detention can last, but the case law seems to suggest that an hour is probably the upper limit. The case law also requires that the field investigation be continual and uninterrupted in order for the standing to detain to remain.

To hold a person for 48 hours requires an arrest, and that requires the much higher "Probable Cause" standard to be met. That one, also IMHO, isn't even close to being met simply by the possession of Assault Weapons and a lack of registration proof. There is some significance to the 48 hour period when an arrest is made. That's the general deadline for a Gerstein Hearing to be held. But that does not infer that LEOs can hold a person for 48 hours without having "Probable Cause" for the arrest.

[five.five-six]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

There are over 225,000 registered AW's in CA.
https://www.thetrace.org/newsletter/...6%2C388%20guns.

How many do you suppose have been confiscated by DOJ raids?
You only cited one case, but let's say it's 200 just to have a number to work with.

Would you like to include the 250 SKS sporters that the state BOUGHT BACK at a profit to the owners?
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...es-2906426.php

If we say it's 200 (probably a big reach), that's 0.08% in the 30+ years since AW's have been registered in CA.
So 99.92% of people have had no problems with their registered AW's.

You are literally more likely to die from Wuhan Virus than have your RAW confiscated.


Having worked in the industry for 5 years, I can tell you the #1, 2, and 3 manners of RAW removal.

1 Death, widow sells her husband’s RAWs out of state through RAW FFL.

2 prohibited person, local agency brings recently prohibited person’s belongings to RAW FFL for sale out of state.

3 boredom, owner isn’t a shooter and the firearm isn’t important to him and he wants money. Brings to a RAW FFL for sale out of state.


I registered some and featurlessed some. Playing red and black and just hope it doesn’t land on green.



For URAW #1&2 manners of confiscation are

1 angry divorcée. It is SOP for the female’s attorney advise filling of restraining order against the husband on day 1 and rat him out on anything that can be illegal to weaken his position.

2 fire or suspicious activity reported. With either of those, no search warrant is required for LEO to enter the residence in most incidents. You are on vacation and your well meaning neighbor mistook the Ryder van Amazon was using as thieves, LEO gains entry and you get a new set of bracelets and free food and board for years upon return from vacation.


Don’t mess around and find out.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by dogcatcher

Does anyone know when we can expect a verdict from the 9th circuit panel?

Sometime after today.
Definitely not before tomorrow.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by M60A1Rise

Not being an *** BUT do you think a LEO will have the equipment let alone an updated system to check that while on the road ?

Many departments parse AFS ownership info out to the squad car computers.
I have friends in LAPD and LASO that can check ownership of a firearm from their squad car's terminal.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by dogcatcher

Ve vill need to zee your paperz!
This is about CA's assault weapon law, correct?

Absolutely NOT.
Any law enforcement officer that has a reason to question the ownership of a firearm will also have the means to verify it with only the make/model/serial of the firearm.
There is absolutely NO requirement to keep any papers with you or with the gun.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by RickD427

In training, I had the honor of crashing the system when I tested it's "Driving Directions" function.
I request a driving route from our Lancaster Station to our Avalon Station.

I guess the computer did not account for the departments watercraft routing possibilities...

[ohsmily]

Originally Posted by Wildcat19

You first, and tell us how it works out. Give them an inch, they will take a mile. You never, EVER, compromise with our constitutional rights. NEVER!

So how are your unpapered machine guns and suppressors? I trust you've never bought a gun from a dealer, either, and been the subject of a 10 day wait, etc? Because you "never, EVER, compromise with your constitutional rights. NEVER!". :ROLLEYES:

[SmallShark]

Originally Posted by Wildcat19

You first, and tell us how it works out. Give them an inch, they will take a mile. You never, EVER, compromise with our constitutional rights. NEVER!

funny

[BaronW]

Am I correct that the current status of this case is that Judge Benitez has assigned "Cross-Designations are due no later than 2/23/2021" (tomorrow), after which point he could theoretically issue a ruling at any time?

Unfortunately the first post of the thread isn't maintained to reflect the current status of the case, so anyone hoping to use this thread to find the current status has to find it in between discussions & speculation.

[NorCalRT]

On the one hand I want him to lay the smack down ASAP, on the other hand my LMT Mars lower finally shipped and I want that in hand before he does

[vino68]

Originally Posted by BaronW

Am I correct that the current status of this case is that Judge Benitez has assigned "Cross-Designations are due no later than 2/23/2021" (tomorrow), after which point he could theoretically issue a ruling at any time?

Unfortunately the first post of the thread isn't maintained to reflect the current status of the case, so anyone hoping to use this thread to find the current status has to find it in between discussions & speculation.

I recommend you sub to Armed Scholar on YouTube for updates. He covered this for us.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by BaronW

Am I correct that the current status of this case is that Judge Benitez has assigned "Cross-Designations are due no later than 2/23/2021" (tomorrow), after which point he could theoretically issue a ruling at any time?

Unfortunately the first post of the thread isn't maintained to reflect the current status of the case, so anyone hoping to use this thread to find the current status has to find it in between discussions & speculation.

Full case history (with updates subject to some delay, I'm sure) can be found here: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/miller or here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc

I'm honestly not sure, though, what the next step is or when it'll happen.

[71MUSTY]

I'm not sure why youall are worried about having a RAW confiscated. Aren't there like 50 more sitting in waterproof containers at the bottom of your farm pond since your boating accident?? At least that is how they do things in Texas.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by vino68

I recommend you sub to Armed Scholar on YouTube for updates. He covered this for us.

I just wish his channel was a little less click-baity...

[ct78]

Originally Posted by CandG

I just wish his channel was a little less click-baity

I agree. I think he’s cool as a person, but his content and level of knowledge are being potentially overlooked when every picture looks like the backdrop is Hell or Biden is looking over us like Palpatine on Star Wars covers. It makes sense tho since the FPC always sends over the top emails 3x a day too.

I would rather get the quick and dirty info from Reno until then.

[BaronW]

Originally Posted by CandG

I just wish his channel was a little less click-baity...

Agreed. I also don’t want to sit through 10 minutes of rehash, speculation, advertising, and standard youtuber engagement fluff to get the one sentence update I’m after. But that’s just part of the medium I guess. I used to watch his videos regularly but haven’t for a while now.

He was also dead wrong about the timetable for a 9th circuit en banc for Duncan.

I guess we can keep an eye out for the remaining filings due from both sides. Once those are in it’s all in the judge’s hands as far as I can tell.

[vino68]

Originally Posted by ct78

I agree. I think he’s cool as a person, but his content and level of knowledge are being potentially overlooked when every picture looks like the backdrop is Hell or Biden is looking over us like Palpatine on Star Wars covers. It makes sense tho since the FPC always sends over the top emails 3x a day too.

I would rather get the quick and dirty info from Reno until then.

I agree that AS should be less click bait and also more detailed. But while I like Reno, he tends to get too excited and report the wrong information from time to time. He has improved over the years but he is still a bit too sensationalized.

[vino68]

Originally Posted by CandG

I just wish his channel was a little less click-baity...

Agreed. I also do not like how he skips or choose not to disclose everything. An example is when he says "Hollywood" gets exemptions. Those exemptions are available to other businesses who also obtain the appropriate FFL and SOT.

Another is he does not mention the 03FFL and COE exemption when discussing ammo. He just says we cannot get ammo to our doors.

[WingDings]

Bless him for fighting the good fight...

But the guy needs a new, non-autistic catchphrase.

”Thank you for watching. Make sure you click like and subscribe. And never forget, this nation was built by armed scholars—this nation will be maintained by armed scholars.”

I kinda want to crawl under a rock when he gets to that last part.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by CandG

I just wish his channel was a little less click-baity...

That, and he's basically a horse-race announcer frantically calling the process of grass growing. He chose the wrong topic if he wanted to make weekly vids.

[Go Packers!]

I appreciate his contribution to the community. I look forward to his explanation on all the updates.

[sheepdawg]

My problem with Armed Scholar is that he presents himself as an authority, but I don’t think he’s much of one. He very proudly and repeatedly say he’s a practicing attorney, but I don’t know how much practicing he has done. He appears to be fresh out of law school. The content of his videos are recycled from Firearms Policy Coalition press releases and what he finds on Google. For example, he made a video about the higher DROS fees a year after it was done, but treated it as new disastrous news because FPC said it was new disastrous news. As another example, in a video about whether you can film police officers, he recites an answer that is commonly found on packaged attorneys’ website that is legally wrong because it’s a law about taking video of people’s underwear, not about filming police officers, and it’s what comes up first through tenth on Internet searches because it’s on attorney websites. He is on staff now at FPC but his insight into Miller v. Becerra is reading FPC’s tweets. His update of court cases depends on when FPC or Michel & Associates publishes it on their websites, which can be weeks later, instead of him following cases on PACER or Courtlistener. How come nothing about updates in the “ghost gun” lawsuit in California v. ATF, in which Polymer80 is an active participant? There’s plenty of other news to make videos about.

[SDCarpenter]

He recently got picked up by and works for FPC.

[johncage]

Originally Posted by WingDings

Bless him for fighting the good fight...

But the guy needs a new, non-autistic catchphrase.

I kinda want to crawl under a rock when he gets to that last part.

yeah it's cringe, his old motto used to be more clever/profound but it was a bit verbose

"a nation that draws great distinction between its scholars and warriors will have its laws drafted by fools and its wars fought by cowards"

i think it's a call back to classical greek or roman antiquity when scholars and statesmen were also usually veterans

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by sheepdawg

My problem with Armed Scholar is that he presents himself as an authority, but I don’t think he’s much of one. He very proudly and repeatedly say he’s a practicing attorney, but I don’t know how much practicing he has done. He appears to be fresh out of law school. The content of his videos are recycled from Firearms Policy Coalition press releases and what he finds on Google. For example, he made a video about the higher DROS fees a year after it was done, but treated it as new disastrous news because FPC said it was new disastrous news. As another example, in a video about whether you can film police officers, he recites an answer that is commonly found on packaged attorneys’ website that is legally wrong because it’s a law about taking video of people’s underwear, not about filming police officers, and it’s what comes up first through tenth on Internet searches because it’s on attorney websites. He is on staff now at FPC but his insight into Miller v. Becerra is reading FPC’s tweets. His update of court cases depends on when FPC or Michel & Associates publishes it on their websites, which can be weeks later, instead of him following cases on PACER or Courtlistener. How come nothing about updates in the “ghost gun” lawsuit in California v. ATF, in which Polymer80 is an active participant? There’s plenty of other news to make videos about.

I don't get that he is coming off as an expert. I think he had said he didn't practice in firearms a law when he started. He came off as a gun enthusiast that happened also to be a lawyer and was helping people to understand basic procedure and legal writing.

[sfvshooter]

Mods

Can we delete or move all AS-related posts and get back on topic.

Thanks