Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/9/2001 5:58:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2001 7:31:47 PM EDT by Chaingun]
[b]Introduction[/b] With the recent CSC ruling on the Roberti Roos "series" wording, Californians now have the right to legally import and own, among others, both the CAV-15 and the Fulton Arms rifles. To keep matters short, they are no longer RR rifles, without pistol grips they are not SB23 rifles, they do not fall under pistol laws, and therefore they are now legal to import. The final approval comes from the Cal-DOJ, which must first review current law, and since there are no laws preventing these rifles, must allow importation into the state. If they refuse the people's right to import a legal firearm, this is an infringement of our constitutional rights, and this is the basis for our class action lawsuit: The People vs. Cal-DOJ. Remember, we have heard repeatedly, that they are only attempting to block "AW"s and have allowed for the importation/sale of FAL style rifles, sans the pistol grip. Even if they stall until the AG adds these to the RR list, we would have had a legal window to purchase these rifles. [b]Infringement and Damages[/b] The have been cases when someone infringes on another's rights, and receives typically a felony with special circumstances. We could even argue this is an act of Treason against the people by the state, one of the original Federal laws. Since this becomes a civil case, an equivalent in monetary compensation must be determined. This is difficult, but something in the order of $100-200 Billion dollars sounds about right, since it is a state that violated the law. The people affected by this infringement would be anyone in California who ever considered owning an AR-15 type rifle. I would expect 10k, 100k, maybe 1 million people affected. A legal fund would be created and all interested parties give $20-50, which should ample funds to cover legal expenses. [b]The Legal Course[/b] Win or loose in the lower court, it will be appealled in the Cal SC where we have a good chance in winning. This in part due to their recent ruling that the "series" term must be dropped, and there are no laws preventing the importation of these rifles. If we loose in the Cal SC, the last step is the USSC, where again the infringement issue would be debated. [b]Conclusion[/b] This is a first stab at finding a legal means to combat the state's AW gun laws. Is this a feasible lawsuit, what can be added to improve this suite, or is it a NOGO?
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 7:28:13 PM EDT
Since the CAV-15 has an integral pistol grip, that one's a non-starter (still banned under SB23). Any model of AR lower not specifically named, though, should be legal for sale in California, without the pistol grip. I like how they call it 'importation' :)
Link Posted: 7/12/2001 5:51:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/12/2001 6:36:17 PM EDT
The CAV-15 receiver being only a partial gun would be acceptable, even with a pistol grip. The Fulton receiver may not be if manufactured by a banned company. There might be a few manufacturers not listed yet. Like the CAV-15 these should be acceptable.
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 2:10:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/16/2001 2:08:45 PM EDT by CPL_Punishment]
And, if I'm not mistaken, aren't the Fulton lowers really Oly (or RRA or ASA) lowers? -Troy
View Quote
Originally Posted By Chaingun: The Fulton receiver may not be if manufactured by a banned company. There might be a few manufacturers not listed yet. Like the CAV-15 these should be acceptable.
View Quote
That brings a good question. Did the PRK in essence ban AR manufacturers or did they ban AR series models ???
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 3:07:48 PM EDT
In California, the AW laws do not infringe on any Constitutional right. Under the Ninth Circuit, the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right. There would be no "damages". The most you could expect would be some sort of injunctive relief relative to enforcement of the laws. There is virtually no chance of winning this case in California Courts, and no chance at all of recovering monetary "damages." Anyone donating any money to a "legal fund" would be pissing away good money. My first thought would be that anyone soliciting donations for such a fund would be running a scam.
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 3:18:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/16/2001 3:15:46 PM EDT by stator]
This is why the emerson case is important. The fifth circuit cannot trump the nineth which is heavily marred with PRK liberalism. However, a SCOTUS ruling automatically trumps any circuit ruling. Unless it is about a stay of execution for the murderer, Harris, who executed two boys for their Big Macs in San Diego. In that case, the nineth didn't believe that SCOTUS can trump their rulings and got slapped by SCOTUS in return.
Link Posted: 7/16/2001 3:22:46 PM EDT
US vs. Emerson is important only if it supports the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and the US Supreme Court follows suit. Neither is a lock. It is highly unusual that a decision still hasn't been handed down a year after oral arguements.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 12:11:31 PM EDT
Dave G. - This is a lawsuit that I made up, and I'm not a lawyer. To keep things fair and square, NRA lawyers are used and the NRA creates a depository for received funds.
In California, the AW laws do not infringe on any Constitutional right. Under the Ninth Circuit, the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right.
View Quote
If they truely believed that the 2nd ammendment is a state right, they could ban all guns today. Currently, they make up "reasons" and pass laws to ban guns, which is not required if it's a state's right. Our argument is, since there are no existing laws to prevent ownership of these rifles, we have the right to purchase them. The DOJ is preventing our right. I have head that the DOJ is suppose to make a statement in an attempt to interpret the CASC's decision on "series".
Link Posted: 7/19/2001 6:02:20 PM EDT
The Bill Of Rights are individual rights, the lefties would have us think otherwise.
Originally Posted By Dave G: In California, the AW laws do not infringe on any Constitutional right. Under the Ninth Circuit, the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right. There would be no "damages". The most you could expect would be some sort of injunctive relief relative to enforcement of the laws. There is virtually no chance of winning this case in California Courts, and no chance at all of recovering monetary "damages." Anyone donating any money to a "legal fund" would be pissing away good money. My first thought would be that anyone soliciting donations for such a fund would be running a scam.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/19/2001 9:20:28 PM EDT
Don't hold your breath. You have no case. You won't find lawyers to take it unless you pay them lottsa money up front. And in the State of California, the 2nd Amendment is currently a collective right whether you want to believe it or not. Even if the laws were overturned, you have no damages to recover. You would simply be allowed to purchase a rifle. One other thing. 100 to 200 [b][i]BILLION[/b][/i] dollars just because you couldn't buy an AR15 in California!?! Assuming a brain-dead judge who would allow that judgement to stand could be found, just where do you think that kind of money is going to come from? What's that...10 or 15 times the annual state budget?
Top Top