Miller v. Bonta 9th Ckt "assault weapons": Held for Duncan result 1-26-24

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/article/Illegal-Gun-Buyback-Slow-Going-Only-250-rifles-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.

[ar15barrels]

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

Sometime after today.
Definitely not before tomorrow.

[ar15barrels]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.