Need help finding a Cali Supreme Court case.

[1JimMarch]

Folks,

Somewhere there's a Cali Supremes case that says something like "since guns are so dangerous, it's up to the gun owners to carefully study the law and keep up to date, otherwise they can be accidentally wrapped up in an illegality they didn't intend to commit and that's OK because they're evil gun nuts" or something roughly to that effect.

It doesn't appear to be Kasler v. Lockyer, or it it is it's not in the majority decision:

http://scocal.stanford.edu/sites/scocal.stanford.edu/files/opinion-pdf/23Cal4th472-1251902479.pdf

Whatever the case is, I need to read it for obvious conflicts with the Heller/McDonald combo punch...

Any help welcome. Thanks.

[bigtoe416]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22in+the+supreme+court+of+california%22+firearms+dangerous+filetype%3Apdf&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Returns over 5000 hits. You can play around with the words that you are more certain would appear in the opinion. I figured firearms and dangerous would be in there.

[Crom]

Harrot vs County of Kings ?

http://rkba.org/judicial/harrott-kings-county-casupct.pdf

“[T]he course taken by the Sheriff and the Kings County Superior
Court would substitute chaos for the AWCA’s plan of uniform, statewide determinations of which guns are [assault weapons]. If allowed to stand, the trial court decision in Harrott would subject California’s gun owners, particularly hunters, to whimsical and capricious prosecution. Kern County might have no problem with a particular firearm, but a single judge in Kings County could turn a truly innocent citizen . . . into a felon. A hunter who left Kern (where a Clayco rifle is completely legal) to hunt in Kings County could be arrested and prosecuted for the minimum four-year sentence felony of transporting an ‘assault weapon’ under section 12280, subdivision (a).” 7

“[C]onsidering the fact that the great majority of gun owners are law
abiding citizens, regardless of their opinion of a particular law, it is unlikely that a 90% rate of noncompliance can [be] explained as a concerted political statement. Far more likely is the possibility that owners of assault weapons were simply unaware of the deadline, or unaware that their particular weapons were included on the list of proscribed firearms.”

[JSilvoso]