Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[JWHuey]

You're not wrong.

It's just important for everyone to understand the duties, and the time sequence involved here.

The AG has a duty to make state peace officers aware of the court's order, and once aware of the order, those officers have to comply with it.

The key here is that the duty to comply comes after the notice, not before.

I sat through quite of few of these things going all the way back to Kolender v Lawson. Agencies generally prepare a briefing of the court's order and then have each officer sign an acknowledgement. That makes the order binding on the officer.

The development and distribution of the briefing takes a few days, and then it takes some time to collect all of the signatures. No department calls an officer back from a two week vacation just to sign the acknowledgement.

Understood. Thank you!

[Chewy65]

You're not wrong.

It's just important for everyone to understand the duties, and the time sequence involved here.

The AG has a duty to make state peace officers aware of the court's order, and once aware of the order, those officers have to comply with it.

The key here is that the duty to comply comes after the notice, not before.

I sat through quite of few of these things going all the way back to Kolender v Lawson. Agencies generally prepare a briefing of the court's order and then have each officer sign an acknowledgement. That makes the order binding on the officer.

The development and distribution of the briefing takes a few days, and then it takes some time to collect all of the signatures. No department calls an officer back from a two week vacation just to sign the acknowledgement.

I don't doubt that what you describe is how the agencies handle things, BUT an officer or agency is bound by the injunction if they have actual notice, albeit from reading the newspaper or whatever, even before they acknowledge the order to the department.

[divert_fuse]

Short Version: Even Chuck Michel, the NRA/CRPA attorney in this case, has cautioned that this ruling is not all-inclusive, and advises restraint. Nothing has changed since 2000; we simply kept the right to keep the mags we already have.

Where did Michel say this? Does anyone know?

They believe that the ruling struck down the CA ban on mags in its entirety...This [ruling] means that STATE and FEDERAL LE are currently prohibited from enforcing this law. It doesn't strike down the law!

I'm not totally sure which document is considered definitive, but the Judgment appears to strike down the law.

Which sounds definitive to me. How else would the law be declared unconstitutional?

If you're a lawyer, there's no cost to saying "wait and see," and a cost for saying "go wild," so I'm disinclined to credit Michel's supposed caution without his actual reasoning.

[RickD427]

I don't doubt that what you describe is how the agencies handle things, BUT an officer or agency is bound by the injunction if they have actual notice, albeit from reading the newspaper or whatever, even before they acknowledge the order to the department.

Chewy,

You're absolutely correct. But the practical problem with that approach is that when an officer realizes that they're about to be fanged for acting improperly, they somehow lose all recollection of reading the newspaper.

How are you going to show that the officer had such knowledge?

[taperxz]

Where did Michel say this? Does anyone know?



I'm not totally sure which document is considered definitive, but the Judgment appears to strike down the law.



Which sounds definitive to me. How else would the law be declared unconstitutional?

If you're a lawyer, there's no cost to saying "wait and see," and a cost for saying "go wild," so I'm disinclined to credit Michel's supposed caution without his actual reasoning.

How long ago did you get you law degree and pass the exam?

[Chewy65]

Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I wouldn't think a LEO having actual notice of the injunction would want to enforce it. If so, there would be no need for a memory lapse. I suppose a problem could arise when a street cop with notice is ordered by superior to enforce a law and the street cop does as ordered, but would prefer to think that is unlikely.

[divert_fuse]

How long ago did you get you law degree and pass the exam?

I'm not a lawyer, in case anyone got that impression.

EDIT: Also, I'm not disagreeing with anyone suggesting waiting a bit, and am not myself rushing out to get new magazines. The points about promulgation of notice are not without merit.

[Chewy65]

Divert Fuse. Although the actual order only refers to state and federal law enforcement, I am not so sure that the wording isn't broad enough to enjoin enforcement by locals. Is a local county mounty not and agent or a person in active concert or participation with the AG when the local enforces state law?

Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him,

NOw go back and look at this near the tail end of the order:

shall be enjoined.

Does the words "shall be" imply that 32310 is not yet enjoined but shall be in the future? Perhaps it only means that its enforcement shall be enjoined upon receipt of notice of injunction.

And I am not a lawyer ANYMORE.

[RickD427]

Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I wouldn't think a LEO having actual notice of the injunction would want to enforce it. If so, there would be no need for a memory lapse. I suppose a problem could arise when a street cop with notice is ordered by superior to enforce a law and the street cop does as ordered, but would prefer to think that is unlikely.

Chewy,

OK, "You're a cockeyed optimist"

And it's exactly the situation that you propose that makes it so.

I don't sense that there are very many street-level LEO's that are actively seeking to seize magazines. Most street officers use the law as a "Tool" to solve problems, and if there is no problem to be solved, the tool stays in the toolbox.

But state-level agencies and a some large municipal agencies do feel a need to play to their political environment, generally through the creation of a "Task Force" to address a perceived problem. The DOJ APPS program and the LAPD Gun Unit are two examples. Officers assigned to such task forces receive direction to enforce selected statutes, and their job performance is measured by the outcome.

[taperxz]

I'm not a lawyer, in case anyone got that impression.

No, you never gave me that impression

[taperxz]

Do you have a quote from Chuck Michel saying otherwise? I can't find anything on his Twitter feed or elsewhere saying anything other than he'll give a statement on the "practical effects" on Monday.

His organization is part of my legal counsel

[divert_fuse]

Although the actual order only refers to state and federal law enforcement, I am not so sure that the wording isn't broad enough to enjoin enforcement by locals.

I agree. Local LEO enforcing state law are acting in concert with the AG.

Does the words "shall be" imply that 32310 is not yet enjoined but shall be in the future? Perhaps it only means that its enforcement shall be enjoined upon receipt of notice of injunction.

According to other posters upthread who sound like they know what they're talking about, that's exactly what it means. Although it seems unlikely that anyone would be convicted, an officer who hadn't gotten official notice and arrested you wouldn't have done anything wrong. You could conceivably have a lot of legal wrangling to deal with.

[Guninator]

His organization is part of my legal counsel

That's very interesting but non-responsive. Do you have a quote or at least on-background information you'd like to share?

[taperxz]

That's very interesting but non-responsive. Do you have a quote or at least on-background information you'd like to share?

Nope. Its also not non-reponsive. Its proprietary

[Guninator]

Guys, stop obsessing on the word "enjoin." It is not the key word in this order.