Push back on anti-gun/2A law makers continues - New lawsuit filed against CA AW ban

[LiveLife]

After federal judge Benitez eloquently spoke against CA's ban on larger than 10 round capacity magazines and ruled the ban unconstitutional with judgement, our push back on the anti-gun/2A law makers continues with a new lawsuit against CA Assault Weapon ban - https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-15/california-assault-weapons-lawsuit

And the fate and destiny of this lawsuit? It may likely be heard by the same pro-gun/2A judge Benitez!

• John Dillon of Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP and San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee sued on Thursday, 8/15/19 to block California from enforcing its assault weapons ban, that it violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms

• The lawsuit was filed in the same San Diego federal district court where judge Benitez in April tossed out a nearly two-decade-old California ban on sales and purchases of larger than 10 round capacity magazines

• The new lawsuit claims decision by federal judge Benitez undermines California’s ban on certain weapons defined as “assault weapons” because they can use large-capacity magazines. Benitez’s decision triggered a weeklong buying frenzy ("Freedom Week") before he stopped sales while the state appeals his ruling.

• In July, CRPA, CA chapter of NRA asked the same judge to block a new law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.

• The latest lawsuit could go before the same judge. (Fate and destiny!!! In your face CA! )

• Lawsuit was filed on behalf of three San Diego County men who own legal rifles or pistols and want to use high-capacity magazines in them but can’t because doing so would turn them into illegal assault weapons under California statutes and they could be confiscated. Another plaintiff is the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee.

• The lawsuit claimed the term assault weapon is “a politically-concocted pejorative term” for weapons lawfully used “in virtually every state” and argued that California is barring law-abiding citizens from getting, making or transferring “firearms in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense inside and outside the home, competition, sport, and hunting.”

• Lawsuit asks the court to declare California’s definition of an assault weapon unconstitutional and issue an order permanently barring enforcement of laws barring them on grounds of their ammunition magazine capacity.

Spread the word.

BTW, you can support CRPA here - https://californiariflepistol.z2systems.com/np/clients/californiariflepistol/membershipJoin.jsp

 

[Basura Blanca]

Not to get all technical, but this isn't CRPA's thing as far as I can tell.
The suit was hatched by our local group San Diego County Gun Owners.

 

[JERRY]

to see any of the California anti-2nd Amendment laws over-ruled is a blessing. good luck with this endeavor.

 

[LiveLife]

Not to get all technical, but this isn't CRPA's thing as far as I can tell.
The suit was hatched by our local group San Diego County Gun Owners.

You are correct. I saw CRPA mentioned in the article and naturally "assumed" it was their lawsuit (I revised the thread title and the OP)

According to this article, attorney John Dillon of "Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP" of Carlsbad, CA was named as the lawyer representing the plaintiffs James Miller, Patrick Russ and Ryan Peterson along with San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee - https://www.kusi.com/san-diego-residents-file-lawsuit-against-californias-assault-weapons-ban/

 

[Basura Blanca]

Obviously, I want this to succeed. Though reading the complaint raises some skepticism. The argument in a nutshell is basically that the magazine injunction allows for the use of +10 variants, except that a +10 variant in a fixed magazine configuration in a semi-auto rifle is, accordingly, an "assault weapon" in the eyes of the state. But wouldn't an unsympathetic judge just instruct the plaintiffs to use the magazines in a non-fixed variation of the same rifle (i.e. one without the "assault weapon" features)?

The solution would be to pull off the offending pistol grip and whatever else is enumerated in pc30515 and therefore not have to use the fixed magazine setup.

or did I miss something here?

 

[LiveLife]

But to judge Benitez, if he's the judge who hears this case, he has already ruled with judgement in April of 2019 that larger than 10 round capacity magazine ban by state of California unconstitutional and for one week, legalized manufacture, importation, sales and purchase of larger capacity than 10 round magazines - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-2#post-11098192

So simply using a (Now legal) larger capacity than 10 round magazine in a "featureless" rifle making it now an assault weapon is another "arbitrary" attempt of state of California to deny its citizens firearms for self defense.

Yes, I would have preferred to have the lawsuit worded/focused better BUT I will take ANY lawsuit against CA's "arbitrary" slippery slope erosion of gun rights/2A any day. And as you can see on this list, there are many lawsuits filed (Yes, it's legal WAR in CA) - https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/October-2018-CRPA-Legal-Affairs.pdf

They don't stop and dont seem to lack ways of attacking the 2A. but they don't lie to talk about illegals and the failed war on drugs that usually result to shootings.

With all due respect, simply ranting about how stupid the latest anti-gun/2A laws are won't get anything accomplished.

Push back against anti-gun/2A laws like this lawsuit and other lawsuits filed by pro-gun/2A organizations and their attorneys will accomplish, perhaps overturning these laws on the basis of being "unconstitutional".

And we can help vote in presidents who will appoint pro-gun/2A judges like Benitez and countless federal district/circuit court judges and SCOTUS justices - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

Trump's latest appointments to 9th Circuit almost ready to flip panel make up for future cases - https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...se-to-having-more-trump-judges-than-any-other

And as much as you can, support CRPA, Calguns Foundation and other pro-gun/2A organizations that are actively engaged in legal battle for us (CRPA in 2018 alone spent millions in legal fees and really need the war chest filled).

Help us fight the good fight, for the right cause.

Current 9th Circuit legal cases (It's WAR!) - https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/California-Legal-Affairs-Report-December-2018.pdf

CRPA legal cases - https://crpa.org/news/litigation/
Calguns legal cases - https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation

 

[Basura Blanca]

So simply using a (Now legal) larger capacity than 10 round magazine in a "featureless" rifle making it now an assault weapon is another "arbitrary" attempt of state of California to deny its citizens firearms for self defense.

Yes, I would have preferred to have the lawsuit worded/focused better BUT I will take ANY lawsuit against CA's "arbitrary" slippery slope erosion of gun rights/2A any day.

Agreed. It's philosophically sound. But the state's long-running monolithic ban is probably safe until we get some clarification on Heller. I've always thought using the olympic pistol exemption as an angle to legitimize what the state considers "assault weapons" would be a good approach. The handful of pistols carved out in that niche are functionally and visibly no different than ones which are banned. It also stands to reason that the core design that the state views as "assault weapon" is used in a world recognized sporting event.

As for this lawsuit, if it didn't have SDCGO's name on it, along with the plaintiffs, I probably would feel a bit uneasy about it. I trust Michael Schwartz. He's a great voice for our cause locally. I'm a bit leery of some of these other single person "coalitions" and "foundations". I'll just leave it at that.

 

[LiveLife]

UPDATE: Great news!

This case has been reassigned to judge Benitez, our patron saint for gun rights!

Woohoo!!!

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/miller