"Nuisance" and interaction with LE

[varanidguy]

No, but he could take them as a "nuisance" under another statute. For the time being, the smart thing is to just keep them in your house till it shakes out.

Didn't Michel say that he believes the nuisance thing is also thrown out?

[Chewy65]

To make sure they are commonly used, ranges should encourage folks to shoot with the Freedom Mags bought this last week to make them more commonly used than ever before in the history of California.

Not the worse thought, but it really is not necessary to risk seizure of LCMs as nuisances, when some wrongfully argue, but some courts agree, that 2A protection is limited to the home given emphasis the in Heller on the lawful use for self protection in the home:

The (challenged) prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family," would fail constitutional muster.

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

[Chewy65]

Didn't Michel say that he believes the nuisance thing is also thrown out?

No. He said if anyone has their lcm seized as a nuisance to contact his firm. I believe the Michel & Associates has posted that the nuisance law is not enjoined at this time.

[varanidguy]

No. He said if anyone has their lcm seized as a nuisance to contact his firm.

Right, that was the follow up to him saying that he thinks the nuisance clause should no longer apply, no?

Paraphrasing: "I don't believe the nuisance clause should apply any longer. So if you have a magazine confiscated as a nuisance, please call us."

[Nor*Cal]

Right, that was the follow up to him saying that he thinks the nuisance clause should no longer apply, no?

Paraphrasing: "I don't believe the nuisance clause should apply any longer. So if you have a magazine confiscated as a nuisance, please call us."

See below...

Thanks for the kinds words.

We will address this "nuisance" issue shortly.

If anyone has their LCM seized by law enforcement and the officer claims it is a "nuisance" please do not hesitate to contact our office. While it is always smart to exercise caution, we are of the opinion that the "nuisance" provision is unenforceable. Standby for more in depth analysis.

This was before the partial stay.

[varanidguy]

See below...



This was before the partial stay.

Right, so shouldn't that remain the opinion for those of us covered under the protections in the partial stay?

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

See below...



This was before the partial stay.

That remains our position.

[Nor*Cal]

That remains our position.

Thank you for the update.

[Chewy65]

To clarify. I answered no, when a poster inquired if Michel & Associates had posted that the nuisance code section has been "thrown out". Sean graciously explained that it is their position that it is unenforceable. I think that correct and it should be "thrown out" and held to be unenforceable since it is based on an unconstitutional law, but that will take another case to establish.

[jimbo74]

so, I have been doing some reading around the net, and it appears that even if I bought >10 round capacity mags this week, I still may not be able to use them? As the original "nuisance" item and subject to confiscation comes into play?

[RickD427]

so, I have been doing some reading around the net, and it appears that even if I bought >10 round capacity mags this week, I still may not be able to use them? As the original "nuisance" item and subject to confiscation comes into play?

Jimbo,

Judge Benitez discussed the "Nuisance" status of large-capacity magazines in the dicta of his opinion. He found the nuisance statute to be unconstitutional, but he did not make any order enjoining the use of the nuisance statute.

While it remains technically possible that large-capacity magazines could be seized by LEO's, that's now quite unlikely while the case works through the court system.

LE agencies tend to be respectful of lower court opinions while a case is working through the system. Nobody wants to piss off a federal judge.

[jimbo74]

so if I go to a range, and some jerk/uniformed cop tries to take it, what do I do? Tell him to **** off or what?

[Chewy65]

so if I go to a range, and some jerk/uniformed cop tries to take it, what do I do? Tell him to **** off or what?

Sure, tell him to **** off and see how long it takes him think of a reason to take you in.

[200Apples]

jimbo74

so if I go to a range, and some jerk/uniformed cop tries to take it, what do I do? Tell him to **** off or what?

I would be polite and cooperative while noting the officer's name and agency if not also their badge number... then I would call Michel & Associates, as was suggested earlier here in this very thread.

sbrady@Michel&Associates

If anyone has their LCM seized by law enforcement and the officer claims it is a "nuisance" please do not hesitate to contact our office. While it is always smart to exercise caution, we are of the opinion that the "nuisance" provision is unenforceable. Standby for more in depth analysis.

[Dvrjon]

I would be polite and cooperative while noting the officer's name and agency if not also their badge number... then I would call Michel & Associates, as was suggested earlier here in this very thread.

I would also demand a receipt from the LEO for the confiscated property.