Just received this email tonight. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

MEDIA RELEASE
RELEASE DATE:  November 8, 2001
Contact: Fresno District Attorney (559) 488-3133
 
MENDOCINO DISTRICT ATTORNEY
JOINS FRESNO  DA LAWSUIT CHALLENGING
INDECIPHERABLE "ASSAULT WEAPON" LAW
UNPRECEDENTED PROSECUTORS' LAWSUIT
CITES CONFUSION OVER LAW'S REQUIREMENTS

Mendocino County District Attorney Norman L. Vroman today announced that his office is joining the Fresno DA's lawsuit challenging
Senate Bill 23, the 1999 amendment to the state's "assault weapon" law that bans firearms based on their cosmetic features.

On September 18, 2001, Fresno DA Edward Hunt, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) (a national association of law
enforcement officers and civilians), and an association of state firearm dealers filed the unprecedented  lawsuit in Fresno County Superior
Court. The lawsuit alleges that the California Department of Justice's (DOJ's) regulations for implementing the law, which were supposed to
clarify the terms used in the original statute, if fact do not provide gun owners, dealers, police, or prosecutors with sufficient guidance to
determine what features are prohibited and to enforce the law fairly and unilaterally, or to determine how to comply with it.

"Not only are the regulations themselves ambiguous, but unfortunately the Attorney General, who is the chief law officer in the State under
the California Constitution (Art. V, sec. 13), is sending mixed signals to front line law enforcement, prosecutors, and civilians working
under him. In fact, DOJ  is enacting policies that conflict with its own regulations," new plaintiff DA Vroman says. "The DOJ training class I
attended in Sacramento was no help. I simply can't do my job, and I can't do justice, under these confusing circumstances. There has got
to be some standard set for everyone to follow."

Though not named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, other District Attorneys and law enforcement officers have joined Hunt and Vroman in
criticizing the DOJ's attempt to implement the state "assault weapon" law.

cont'd

con't

A spokesman for the San Francisco district attorney's office told San Francisco legal newspaper The Recorder on September 20th that his office too has had considerable trouble defining what constitutes an "assault weapon." "There has been confusion," said DA spokesman
Fred Gardner.

Kern County District Attorney Edward Jagels also expressed concern about enforcing the law fairly. "A Deputy DA from this office attended
a DOJ training class in San Diego that was supposed to clarify how the law should be applied." Jagels said. "He came away with more
unanswered questions than he went in with. And we repeatedly have to field questions from law enforcement about what it all means.
Often, we simply can't tell them."

In Ventura County, District Attorney Michael Bradbury said he too has issues. "Deciphering these regulations is a near impossible task."
Bradbury says. "If the Legislature wants to condemn a subclass of firearms, they have to identify those firearms clearly. If gun experts
can't figure out what this law covers, how is the average law abiding gun owner supposed to know?"

Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Mike Carona agreed: "The law's requirements are impossible to decipher," he said.  "Not just for civilians,
for my deputies as well."

[b]The ultimate proof of the confusion surrounding the "assault weapon" law's requirements lies in this year's Senate Bill 626 (Perata), recently signed by the Governor. SB 626 repeals a key feature of SB 23, changing it to allow late registration of "assault weapons" by law enforcement officers.  SB 626 acknowledges the confusion over which privately owned guns are covered by the law, and particularly over what guns police officers had to register. [i]The bill recognizes and grants immunity to the many police officers who own "assault weapons" but did not register their firearms by the cut off date as required and who are now subject to felony prosecution.[/i]  But civilians who were equally confused by the regulations have also become unwitting accidental felons for inadvertently violating the law. SB 626 offers them no relief.[/b]

that last paragraph has to do with the fact that a LEO was arrested for shooting an illegal mak-90. so they are just trying to cover themselves the bastards.
didnt that case go to the state SC and win in the officers favor?

It's about time someone challenges the Caliban's decision!

Things started to go down hill for HCI when last June CASC struck down the "series ban" addition to Roberti-Roos. I don't hear them whinning much lately either.

Let's keep our fingers crossed and our donation funds targeted to the right places. I think Perata goofed big time with the latest law granting waviers for LEO's personal firearms. This is clearly unconstitutional, IMO

Oh man, this is great. Even if it won't do anything, it's great to see some fellow CA residents standing up for their rights. :0

If it's the officer that was in the NRA infomercial about what CA was doing to people's rights, yes I believe he was convicted in trial court, and eventual was able to get the conviction thrown out on appeal. He lost his job etc. along the way.

ARowner's crack about the Caliban is funny. I like it better than the "K" spelling of Kalifornia.

I absolutely agree!  It's a good thing I hadn't gotten my first cup of coffee before I read that one.  It's much funnier and more appropriate than PRK or KKKalifornia.  It's a perfect moniker for what I've been calling the occupational or rogue government.

[50]

I will call it the Caliban from now on!