Tweet
CGF's response to City of LA passage of "large capacity" magazine ban.
(Ban not active til July 2014, fortunately.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(apologies for formatting losses)
The Law Offices of DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
27201 Puerta Real, Ste 300,
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Direct (949) 310-0817
Fax (949) 288-6894
Jason@CalGunLawyers.com
www.CalGunLawyers.comLaurel Heights improvement Assn. v. Regents of U.C ., 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1127 (1993). In re Rudy L., 29 Cal. App. 4th 1007, 1011(1994). "[I]Burnsed v. State
Bd. Of Control, Bowland v. Municipal Court , 18 Cal. 3d 479, 489 (1976).except possess and personally use them.
Sincerely,
DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
(signed) Jason Davis
(Ban not active til July 2014, fortunately.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(apologies for formatting losses)
The Law Offices of DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
27201 Puerta Real, Ste 300,
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Direct (949) 310-0817
Fax (949) 288-6894
Jason@CalGunLawyers.com
www.CalGunLawyers.comLaurel Heights improvement Assn. v. Regents of U.C ., 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1127 (1993). In re Rudy L., 29 Cal. App. 4th 1007, 1011(1994). "[I]Burnsed v. State
Bd. Of Control, Bowland v. Municipal Court , 18 Cal. 3d 479, 489 (1976).except possess and personally use them.
"Nothing in the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 is intended to substantively change
the law relating to deadly weapons. The act is intended to be entirely nonsubstantive in effect.
Every provision of this part, of Title 2 (commencing withSection 12001) of Part 4, and every
other provision of this act, including, without limitation, every cross-reference in every provision
of the act, shall be consistent with the nonsubstantive intent of the Act."
Thus, all changes made to the Penal Code as a part of the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 were entirely nonsubstantive and their previous interpretations and intents remain intact. Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco,the law relating to deadly weapons. The act is intended to be entirely nonsubstantive in effect.
Every provision of this part, of Title 2 (commencing withSection 12001) of Part 4, and every
other provision of this act, including, without limitation, every cross-reference in every provision
of the act, shall be consistent with the nonsubstantive intent of the Act."
(1) [T]he subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to clearly
indicate that it has become exclusively a matter of state concern;
(2) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to
indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action;
or
(3) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law, and the subject is of such a nature
that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweigh the possible
benefit to the locality.
District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, (2010) 130 S. Ct. 3020. The City's attempt to ban, outright, firearms in common use by regulating away their essential and necessary firearm components on a piecemeal basis violates the Second Amendment and infringes on fundamental individual liberties. If the City's ordinance is passed, the City should expect a civil rights lawsuit to be filed in Federal court.indicate that it has become exclusively a matter of state concern;
(2) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to
indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action;
or
(3) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law, and the subject is of such a nature
that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweigh the possible
benefit to the locality.
Sincerely,
DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
(signed) Jason Davis
Comment