Gun Rights Crusaders Target State Over Definition of "Assault Weapon"
|Hell yeah I got a license for it!|
In this state it's also "unconstitutionally vague" according to a lawsuit filed this week by a band of gun rights crusaders.
The plaintiffs in the case, filed Thursday in Oakland, are the Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Brendan John Richards. The latter is an Iraq vet who managed to get himself arrested and his guns impounded -- twice. The former are two litigious firearms aficionado groups who have made a cottage industry out of suing cities and states (you may recall the Second Amendment Foundation successfully forcing Muni to accept advertising in which people brandish firearms).
In both of Richards' confrontations with the law, he and the arresting officer differed on whether the firearms in the ex-Marine's trunk fit the definition of "assault weapons." In both cases, Richards lost the argument, was arrested, had his guns taken away, and spent several days in jail while his family ponied up bail money. And, finally, in both cases, weapons experts overruled the arresting officers, declaring Richards' armory were not "assault weapons" -- all charges were dismissed, and Richards got his non-assault weapons back.
Now, naturally, he's taking everybody to court.
To take a shot at the nitty-gritty of this case, Richards' first arrest took place last year at a Sonoma County Motel 6 during an investigation of a "disturbance," about which the suit does not go into detail.
The plaintiff saw fit to tell a Sonoma County sheriff's deputy that there were unloaded firearms in his trunk. The deputy seized two pistols and a rifle -- the suit, again, does not offer more salient details -- and arrested Richards on two counts of assault weapon possession and four counts of "possession of large capacity magazines." Those charges were eventually dismissed, however, when a state expert on firearms ruled the guns did not meet the criteria of "assault weapons"
(For those who know their firearms, the semiautomatic pistol "had a properly installed bullet button, thus rendering the firearm incapable of accepting a detachable magazine that could only be removed from the gun by the use of a tool.")
In brief, the gun enthusiasts claim the state's "Assault Weapon Statutes and Regulations" are "vague and ambiguous on their face as related to Richards' arrests." The plaintiffs claim the state's laws are "hopelessly vague and ambiguous as applied; and thus an infringement on the Second Amendment." The state's regulations, then are "unconstitutionally vague," and "mere possession of a firearm, when otherwise lawful, cannot support a finding of probable cause to believe a crime has been committed."
Richards wants the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office to undergo more training related to California's Assault Weapon Statutes and Regulations -- which he'd also like to see taken out and shot as unconstitutional.
Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF