Category Archives: 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms

HOUSE PASSED! Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

Introduced in House (01/03/2017)

HR 38 – Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

House vote final tally

Passed House vote  on 6-NOV-2017

This bill amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.

A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.

Additionally, the bill specifies that a qualified individual who lawfully carries or possesses a concealed handgun in another state: (1) is not subject to the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm in a school zone, and (2) may carry or possess the concealed handgun in federally owned lands that are open to the public.

Constitutional Authority Statement

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2017)] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office

[www.gpo.gov]

By Mr. HUDSON:
H.R. 38.

Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
The 2nd Amendment, which states that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
[Page H47]

About Constitutional Authority Statements

On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to House Rule XII. Rule XII, clause 7(c) requires that, to be accepted for introduction by the House Clerk, all bills (H.R.) and joint resolutions (H.J.Res.) must provide a document stating “as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.”

COMMENTARY:  By M Souza

The anti-2nd Amendment Left –

Constitutional Authority Statement
[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2017)] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] By Mr. HUDSON:
H.R. 38.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The 2nd Amendment, which states that “A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.”
[Page H47]

About Constitutional Authority Statements

On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to House Rule XII. Rule XII, clause 7(c) requires that, to be accepted for introduction by the House Clerk, all bills (H.R.) and joint resolutions (H.J.Res.) must provide a document stating “as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.

including the overwhelming majority of members of the Democrat Party – are frequent to extoll the righteous virtues of Federal law across all states: except in matters of Immigration and Firearms. For these two categories, federal authority doesn’t apply.

NATIONAL CONCEAL CARRY RECIPROCITY LAW

U.S.
GUNS IN AMERICA: WHAT IS NATIONAL CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY?
BY MICHELE GORMAN ON 3/3/17 AT 8:18 AM
CPAC 2017: NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre: Gun Owners ‘Helped Put Trump Over The Top’ In 2016 Election

00:0000:41
U.S.GUNSGUN LAWSNRAGUNS IN AMERICA SERIESNATIONAL CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY

The Senate’s No. 2 Republican this week introduced a bill that would require states that issue permits allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons to recognize such permits from other states. In a statement on Monday, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said his national concealed carry reciprocity bill would strengthen “both the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and the power of states to implement laws best-suited for the folks who live there.”

North Carolina Republican Richard Hudson introduced a similar proposal in the House on January 3, the first day of the new Congress, and it now has at least 163 co-sponsors.
Related: Gun groups evaluate options after court upholds ban

House and Senate members in the past have backed national reciprocity legislation, and with Republicans controlling both Congress and the White House, it now stands a better chance of becoming law. President Donald Trump, who has publicly supported national reciprocity, took his first significant step on behalf of gun rights advocates on Tuesday—just more than a month into office—when he completed the repeal of an Obama-era rule that barred certain Social Security recipients with mental health conditions from buying guns.
Here, we break down what exactly is national concealed carry reciprocity, including what each side says about the idea.

BILL WAUGH/REUTERS
What Are The Concealed Carry Laws?

Every state and Washington, D.C., allows concealed carry in some form, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. And nearly every state has some restrictions on where its residents can carry the weapons, such as in bars, schools, hospitals and government buildings.

Thirty-nine states generally require a state-issued permit to carry concealed weapons in public. The remaining 11 (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming) don’t require a state government permit. New Hampshire became the 11th just last week, when Republican Governor Chris Sununu eliminated the state’s concealed carry license requirement. (His Democratic predecessor had repeatedly vetoed the change, arguing that it threatened to weaken public safety.) Other states will also be considering so-called permitless carry during their 2017 legislative sessions.
While every state has its own permitting system, there are several standards that are more commonly used. The strongest laws, for example, require an applicant to demonstrate a justifiable need for a permit. Additionally, some states require the applicant to demonstrate some level of knowledge of firearm use or safety, among other things.
Permits vary in duration, and the renewal processes differ. Currently, the strongest state laws prevent out-of-state residents from carrying within their borders, while others limit those who may carry to individuals with permits from states that have similar requirements. Those with the weakest laws allow carrying by individuals with permits from any state.

What Do Supporters Say?

Proponents of national reciprocity say it would make concealed carry permits more like driver’s licenses. National reciprocity has been a longtime top priority of the National Rifle Association, which views it as a “commonsense solution to a real problem,” says Jennifer Baker, director of public affairs for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. The NRA has backed both the House and the Senate versions of the legislation.

The current system, she tells Newsweek, is confusing and “a real problem for law-abiding gun owners who travel across state lines and want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.” She cites people who have been arrested for possessing their guns while they traveled or while living temporarily out of state because they weren’t aware of differing gun laws.

Baker acknowledges that there’s work to be done to pass national reciprocity in Congress. But if it gets through on Capitol Hill, she says, the NRA is confident Trump, a pro–Second Amendment president, will sign the legislation.

Not more than a week after the November election, the NRA’s leader, Wayne LaPierre, requested that Congress and Trump pass reciprocity legislation “as quickly as it can be written and signed.” A month earlier, Trump had gone on the record supporting national reciprocity, saying, “The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway.”

He added: “A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving—which is a privilege, not a right—then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.”

What Do Critics Say?

Opponents argue that national reciprocity would enable the least restrictive requirements to apply to the entire country, thus undercutting the most stringent laws in some states. Although there are differences between the House and Senate versions, each has the base goal of nullifying a large number of state laws and making it difficult for law enforcement officers to determine when they can enforce their state’s laws, says Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney for the Law Center.

But Nichols says she sees obstacles to the measures becoming law, including the strength and resources of the gun violence prevention movement. And there’s also a legal argument about states’ power under the Constitution: One could argue, she says, that national reciprocity would undermine state authority.

House vs. Senate

The most significant difference between the House and Senate versions is what happens in a carrier’s home state. In Hudson’s House bill, residents would be allowed to obtain concealed carry permits from other states to use in their home states. In Cornyn’s Senate version, carriers would still have to comply with the laws of their home state.

What’s the History?

Similar bills have previously been introduced, but they have never left committee. During the last Congress, in 2015, Cornyn proposed legislation that picked up 35 co-sponsors, including some Democratic senators who are up for re-election in 2018.

For his current bill, Cornyn has at least 31 Republican co-sponsors. In addition to support from every Republican senator, Cornyn would need to gain eight Democratic votes to overcome a filibuster.

Amid lobbying by the NRA, last month four Senate Democrats and an independent—who are all up for re-election next year—sided with their Republican colleagues by voting to revoke the Obama administration gun regulation that prevented certain individuals with mental health conditions from buying firearms. This could be a sign of things to come.

ANOTHER LEGACY LOSS FOR MARXIST O’BUMMY

In a stunning victory for the pro-gun community, the first bill to repeal an Obama anti-gun measure is now headed to President Trump’s desk.

Earlier today, the Senate voted to overturn Barack Obama’s Social Security Gun Ban.

[The vote in the Senate was 57-43, with all Republicans voting for the repeal. They were joined by only four Democrats and one Independent. The earlier House vote was 235-180.]

The resolution, House Joint Resolution 40, now goes to the president’s desk, where Donald Trump is expected to eagerly sign it.

This action is expected to be the first of a series of pro-gun actions to be taken by Congress and the Trump administration.

The Social Security Gun Ban was pushed by Barack Obama beginning on January 4, 2016.

It was a flailing PR stunt following a terrorist shooting in which an ISIS Islamic militant shot up a gun-free community center in the gun-hating state of California.

Somehow Obama thought he could convince the country that nationalizing California’s failed laws would prevent more of the same.

Under the soon-to-be-repealed Social Security Gun Ban, garden-variety bureaucrats could look through applications for benefits and summarily impose gun bans on law-abiding Americans, even though they had no training in medicine and no contact with the applicant.

Conditions as benign as “anxiety” could be used to strip Americans of their constitutional rights with no due process whatsoever. People receiving benefit payments through a guardian would also lose their guns.

ARIZONA – ARMED CITIZEN SAVES TROOPER

Good Samaritan shoots, kills man who wounded Arizona DPS trooper in struggle
www.azcentral.com
DPS TROOPER SHOT ON I-10 NEAR TONOPAHDPS spokesman discusses shooting of trooper near Tonopah | 1:13
Arizona Department of Public Safety PIO Capt. Damon Cecil answers questions about a trooper being shot Jan. 12, 2017, at the scene of a rollover accident on Interstate 10 near Tonopah. Mark Henle/azcentral.com

DPS TROOPER SHOT ON I-10 NEAR TONOPAHDPS trooper injured in shooting on I-10 | 0:49
A DPS trooper was injured in a shooting on I-10 near Tonopah on Jan. 12, 2016 Yihyun Jeong/The Republic

DPS TROOPER SHOT ON I-10 NEAR TONOPAHArizona Department of Public Safety trooper shot on I-10 | 0:44
I-10 was closed off near exit 94 where a DPS trooper was shot Thursday. Officials instructed semi truck drivers to back out as investigators gathered evidence. Yihyun Jeong/azcentral.com

Last VideoNext Video
DPS spokesman discusses shooting of trooper near Tonopah
DPS trooper injured in shooting on I-10
Arizona Department of Public Safety trooper shot on I-10
Woman ejected from vehicle also dead at scene west of Tonopah
An Arizona Department of Public Safety trooper was shot, Jan. 12, 2017, at the scene of a rollover accident on Interstate 10 near Tonopah.(Photo: Mark Henle / The Republic)

A man traveling to California came to the rescue of a wounded state trooper who was struggling with the gunman who had shot him on an isolated stretch of Interstate 10, authorities said.

The man, who was with his wife, stopped his car when he came upon a rollover accident and saw the struggle, according to Col. Frank Milstead, Arizona Department of Public Safety director.

The trooper told the man he needed help, and the man returned to his car, got his gun and fired at the assailant when he refused to listen to orders to stop and back away, Milstead said.

The man who shot the trooper was dead, as was a woman who had been ejected from the vehicle, Milstead said.

Milstead said the trooper, a 27-year veteran, was in stable condition after being shot in the right shoulder and chest. His wife and other troopers were with him at the hospital where he was scheduled to undergo surgery. The trooper’s name was not immediately released.

He was going to be “OK after some recovery,” Milstead tweeted earlier Thursday.

Roberts: This is a gun story to celebrate on Interstate 10

Show ThumbnailsShow CaptionsLast SlideNext Slide
Milstead spoke at a Goodyear hospital where the trooper was taken, and DPS Capt. Damon Cecil provided details from the scene of the shooting, west of Tonopah and about 40 miles west of downtown Phoenix.

Milstead said the trooper was responding to a shots-fired call at milepost 81 about 4 a.m. after a caller said a car in the freeway median had fired a shot at his vehicle.

As the trooper was heading west, he came across a rollover accident at milepost 89. The car involved was registered in Arizona.

“We believe the suspect was in the rolled-over car, but it hasn’t been confirmed,” Cecil said.

The trooper was settling down flares in the pitch dark when a gunman “ambushed” the trooper at the scene, shooting him. The wound affected the trooper’s gun hand, but the trooper continued to physically fight the man, Cecil said.

Milstead said the civilian saw a man on top of the trooper, pounding his head in the pavement, and asked if the trooper needed help.

The civilian, who also was not identified, shot the man and then used the trooper’s radio to call for help, Milstead said.

Medical helicopters flew the trooper, the gunman and the woman ejected in the rollover to the Abrazo West Campus in Goodyear.

The Buckeye Police Department also posted their wishes for the trooper’s speedy recovery on a department social-media account.

Thanks for the thoughts and prayers this morning for our Trooper that was shot. Looks like he will be okay after some recovery @Arizona_DPS

— Col. Frank Milstead (@frank_milstead) January 12, 2017
@Arizona_DPS the @BuckeyePolice wishes your Trooper a speedy recovery. We are thinking of your Troopers and family’s today.

— Buckeye Police Dept (@BuckeyePolice) January 12, 2017I-10 to remain closed as investigation continues
Law enforcement vehicles were parked outside the Abrazo West Campus in Goodyear on Jan. 12, 2017. (Photo: Alessandra Luckey/The Republic)

Officials said that nearly 100 semitrucks had to be backed out of the area as the investigation expanded.

A detour for local traffic was set up using 411th Avenue. ADOT suggested State Route 85 and Interstate 8 as alternate routes for travelers passing through the area.

Truck driver Kenny Dunn said he was driving westbound on the Interstate 10 when the traffic came to a standstill.

Dunn said an official came by his window and said, “Hang tight, it’s going to be awhile.”

He said he saw smoke coming from a rolled-over vehicle and a maroon unmarked DPS car in the middle of the freeway.

He said he learned that a DPS trooper might have been injured and shortly afterward saw a helicopter swoop in and take off. Another helicopter came and took off after 10 minutes, he said.

During this time, his truck partner, Lawrence Weakley, 40, was asleep, but Weakley was awakened by Dunn and told what had happened.

“It sounds tragic,” he said. “Officers flew by (Dunn) to respond. Everyone responded immediately. It’s overwhelming.”

Their truck was the last of nearly 100 trucks that had to be backed out of the area as investigators worked to expand the scene.

Gov. Doug Ducey issued a statement Thursday morning.

“We are so relieved to hear this brave officer is safe, and will recover,” Ducey said. “This incident is another reminder of the risks that the men and women who wake up each morning and put on the badge take for our state. A courageous officer who puts his life on the line to protect our communities — and the fast-acting first-responders whose efforts were responsible for getting him to safety, doing for this officer what our cops do for our state every day. “I urge Arizonans to join me in praying for a quick recovery for this brave officer and thanking everyone who, through their actions in real time, showed our officers exactly what Arizona means when we say: ‘You have our backs — and we will always have yours.’”
Return to azcentral.com for additional details. Includes information from Arizona Republic reporter Logan Newman.

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2inCVri
COMMENTS

FLORIDA – ARMED CITIZEN SAVES DEPUTY

Guns Save Lives: Armed Passerby Saves Police Officer From Being Beaten to Death
Leah Barkoukis  | November 15, 2016
Guns Save Lives: Armed Passerby Saves Police Officer From Being Beaten to Death

Usually it’s police who come to the rescue, but for one sheriff’s deputy in Florida, it was a man with a concealed carry permit who saved his life.

The deputy tried to make a traffic stop Monday morning but instead of stopping, the driver took off, driving more than 100 miles per hour. After following the suspect onto an exit ramp, the driver got out of his car and started assaulting the deputy, identified as Dean Bardes.

Fortunately, an armed passerby came to Bardes’ rescue.

Shanta Holditch told WZVN that the suspect pulled the deputy out of his car and “just kept beating him and beating him … throwing him to the ground and punching him in all different directions.”

At that point, WINK reported, another driver got out of his car and ran to the scene. He told the suspect that he’d shoot him if he didn’t stop beating the deputy.

“[He] refused to get off the officer and the officer kept yelling, ‘shoot him, shoot him, shoot him,’ Holditch said.

When the suspect didn’t stop his attack, the third man shot him three times. The deputy was not hit. The suspect later died.

“I heard like three shots. He fell down on top of the police officer,” said a witness who would only give his last name, Smith.  “After a moment, the police officer rolled him back over, got on his mic, then rolled over back on the ground besides the guy.”

Bardes, a 12-year veteran of the Lee County Sheriff’s Office, suffered only minor injuries and was released from the hospital the same day.

If the ‘good guy’ didn’t have his gun, this story could’ve ended very differently for the deputy.

2017 CA FIREARM POLICY

10 Things Every California Gun Owner Needs to Know on January 1, 2017

Here’s a short list of some very important things that California gun owners should keep in mind as they head into the new year.

1. Proposition 63 is already the law (!).

On November 8, 2016, California voters enacted Proposition 63 (the “Safety for All Act”), sponsored by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.

And, according to Article II, Section 10(a) of the California Constitution: “An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise.”

Among other things, Proposition 63 amended Penal Code Sections 32310, 32400, 32405, 32410, 32425, 32435, 32450, added Section 32406, and repealed Section 32420 by initiative statute, which changed the law to totally prohibit and criminalize the possession of “large-capacity magazines” as of July 1, 2017.

You can see, for example, that Penal CodeSection 32310 already reflects Prop 63 (as noted on the Leginfo website, “Amended November 8, 2016, by initiative Proposition 63, Sec. 6.1.”).

2. Seven new gun control bills will become law on January 1, 2017.

Here’s a quick run down of the California gun bills that Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown signed into law in July:

  • AB 1135 (Levine): Bans common and constitutionally-protected firearms that have magazine locking devices (like the “Bullet Button”). Sister bill to SB 880.
  • SB 880 (Hall): Bans common and constitutionally-protected firearms that have magazine locking devices. Sister bill to AB 1135.
  • AB 1511 (Santiago): Criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults, including family members, sportspersons, and competitors.
  • AB 1695 (Bonta): Makes a non-violent misdemeanor a prohibiting offense.
  • SB 1235 (de Leon): New restrictions on ammunition purchases and sellers; creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners.
  • SB 1446 (Hancock): Statewide confiscatory ban on all lawfully-possessed standard-capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 round; exemption for retired police
  • AB 857 (Cooper) requires that serial numbers be placed on un-serialized firearms (in some cases going back at least 50 years) and on all new owner-assembled (“home-built)” firearms.

3. Some sections of California’s byzantine gun control laws might beeven more confusing on January 1, 2017.

As noted above, Proposition 63 is already the law of the state.

And the California Constitution states that the Legislature may only “amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.”  Cal. Cont. Art. II, Section 10(c).

Proposition 63 expressly provided that its provisions “may be amended [only] by a vote of 55 percent of the members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor,” but only “so long as such amendments are consistent with and further the intent of this Act.”  California Proposition 63 (2016), § 13.

Why does this matter? Because some gun bills (SB 1446 and SB 1235 in particular) added to or changed some of the same sections of law that Proposition 63 did.

This might be a bit confusing, but hang in there:

1. In July, Governor Brown signed 7 new gun bills, including SB 1235 and SB 1446.

2. None of those were “urgency statutes” that immediately go into effect. So, the additions or changes in those bills don’t become statutes until January 1. (Cal. Const. Art. IV, § 8.)

3. Proposition 63 passed on November 8, went into effect (see part 1 of this post, above), and the statutes were added or changed accordingly.

4. On January 1, 2017, SB 1235 and SB 1446’s provisions will become statutes.

5. SB 1235 and SB 1446 were passed by “55 percent of the members of each house of the Legislature” and were “signed by the Governor.”

6. No one knows if Gavin Newsom, the DOJ, Legislative Counsel, and the Secretary of State all believe that SB 1235 and SB 1446’s “amendments” to the Proposition 63-enacted statutes are “consistent with and further the intent of” Proposition 63.

And there are significant differences between the respective bills’ statutory exemptions and the exemptions found in Proposition 63, as another example of how things might be more confusing going forward. In some cases, even the criminal liability and the dollar amount for fines are different.

Even worse is that, in some cases, there will be two different Penal Code sections with the same number.

Indeed, there are now two very slightly different Penal Code Section 30680. (Seriously.)

Section 30680, as added by AB 1135, states:

Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:

(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person would have been eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

(b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.

(c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

But the Section 30680 language added by SB 880 states:

Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:

(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person was eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

(b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.

(c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

(Emphasis added for clarity.)

Notice the difference in subdivision (a)? How about the little chaptering note under the first version of Section 30680? (“See similar section added by Stats. 2016, Ch. 48.“)

screen-shot-2016-12-30-at-4-52-14-pm

Obviously, our policy and legal teams are actively evaluating issues like these…


Stay up to date on the latest gun law changes! Sign up for FPC Gun Rights News and Alerts:

 


4. Any “Bullet-Button Assault Weapon” must belawfully possessed before January 1, 2017.

Penal Code Section 30900(b)(1), which was added by SB 880 and AB 1135, states that:

Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool,” – this is how they wrap up post-SB 23 “Bullet Button” (or magazine locking device)-equipped rifles and pistols, in conjunction with Section 30515(b) – “shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5).

So, effective January 1, 2017, what will Section 30515 say an “assault weapon” by characteristics (sometimes called “evil features”) is?

(a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer’s hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

The DOJ’s proposed regulations say that “The Department will not register a firearm as an assault weapon if the firearm is featureless,” and “The Department will not register a firearm as an assault weapon unless the firearm is fully assembled and fully functional.”

So, law-abiding California gun owners can register their “fully assembled and fully functional” “Bullet-Button Assault Weapons”, but only if the”fully assembled and fully functional” “Bullet-Button Assault Weapon” firearm was possessed before January 1, 2017.

5. All lawfully possessed “Bullet-Button Assault Weapons” must beregistered before January 1, 2018.

SB 880 and AB 1135 both added Section 30680. (See part 3, above, on the Section 30680 mess…)

Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:

(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person was eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.
(b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.
(c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

Penal Code Section 30605 is where the law establishes what the penalty for unlawful possession of an “assault weapon” is. It states:

(a) Any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in this chapter, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a first violation of these provisions is punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) if the person was found in possession of no more than two firearms in compliance with Section 30945 and the person meets all of the following conditions:

(1) The person proves that he or she lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon.
(2) The person has not previously been convicted of a violation of this article.
(3) The person was found to be in possession of the assault weapon within one year following the end of the one-year registration period established pursuant to Section 30900.
(4) The person relinquished the firearm pursuant to Section 31100, in which case the assault weapon shall be destroyed pursuant to Sections 18000 and 18005.

So, someone who has a “Bullet-Button Assault Weapon” isn’t subject to the criminal liability in Section 30605 if they meet all of the conditions in Section 30680 and register the assault weapon “by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900.”

For more on the DOJ’s proposed regulations and registration process, see our “Bullet-Button Assault Weapon” page here.

6. Many un-serialized firearms (like “80% lower” builds) will eventually need to be “serialized” and registered–then they’ll be prohibited from sale or transfer.

AB 857 will require (with limited exceptions) that any firearm without a serial number, and any firearm assembled from, e.g., an “80% lower”, have an engraved or permanently affixed” “unique serial number or other mark of identification” issued by the California Department of Justice.

And, making matters worse, the law says that “The sale or transfer of ownership of a firearm manufactured or assembled pursuant to this section is prohibited.”

Here’s the Legislative Counsel’s summary of the bill (with some paragraph breaks added for clarity):

This bill would, commencing July 1, 2018, and subject to exceptions, require a person who manufactures or assembles a firearm to first apply to the department for a unique serial number or other identifying mark, as provided.

The bill would, by January 1, 2019, and subject to exceptions, require any person who, as of July 1, 2018, owns a firearm that does not bear a serial number to likewise apply to the department for a unique serial number or other mark of identification.

The bill would, except as provided, prohibit the sale or transfer of ownership of a firearm manufactured or assembled pursuant to these provisions.

The bill would prohibit a person from aiding in the manufacture or assembly of a firearm by a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor.

By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require the department to issue a serial number or other identifying mark to an applicant meeting specified criteria and would allow the department to charge a fee to recover its costs associated with assigning a distinguishing number or mark pursuant to the above provisions.

The DOJ hints at the serialization process in its proposed regulations on “Bullet-Button Assault Weapons” (going to unserialized firearms that are to be registered as “assault weapons”).

If you have any 80% builds or unserialized firearm, or intend to assemble a firearm from an unserialized receiver, you’re definitely going to want to read all of the law changes and, if necessary, get specific legal advice on how to comply.

Importantly, a gun owner cannot use an “80%” build to configure any “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” on or after January 1, 2017.

7. The DOJ might (and probably will) push new regulations that go beyond the statutes.

Yesterday, we sent out an alert about the California DOJ’s new “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” regulations.

Apparently, once a firearm is a “Bullet-Button Assault Weapon,” you’re stuck with it unless you reconfigure the firearm and de-register it as an AW: “The release mechanism for an ammunition feeding device on an assault weapon registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) shall not be changed after the assault weapon is registered.”

And, earlier this week, we reported that DOJpulled their proposed “emergency” large-capacity magazine ban regulations….but only after we, other gun rights groups, and thousands of pro-gun patriots fought back and fiercely opposed them.

Like death and taxes, the one thing California gun owners can inevitably count on is that the anti-gun DOJ will use (and abuse) its authority to force gun regulations down our collective throats.

But even when the DOJ goes beyond its legal authority to create regulations, it has to be challenged in court. And, except in very rare cases (and especially with “gun” cases), lawsuits that challenge the DOJ’s rulemaking or policies and practices can take many months, if not years, to fully resolve.

For example, back in 2014 the DOJ (without notice) decided to change its interpretation of state law about handgun sales, prohibiting dealers from selling more than 1 handgun in any 30-day period in spite of a clear statutory exemption (at Section 27353(b)(9)) for law-abiding people who have both a Certificate of Eligibility and Type 3 (Curio & Relic) FFL.

Some gun owners who were affected sued the DOJ in May 2014 (Doe v. Attorney General Kamala Harris). Over two years later now, that case is on appeal and probably won’t be decided by the Court of Appeal until late 2017. And that may not be the end of it – whichever party loses there will almost certainly petition the California Supreme Court to review the case and make a final decision.

These kinds of legal actions to block or strike down the DOJ’s improper rulemaking or policies may not be the major federal Second Amendment cases that make the news every day. But they are, more often than not, complex legal actions that cost significant sums in legal fees. And they are also extremely important to gun rights and protecting law-abiding gun owners from hostile executive over-reach and agencies who think they can make up the law whenever they feel like it.

8. There is no ‘magic wand’ to fix California’s gun control laws – it’s going to take a LOT of commitment, work, time, and money.

President-elect Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton is an unquestionably significant achievement for gun owners across the United States. But it is not a magic wand that will solve all of our problems.

On the federal legislative side of things, some sources are telling us that the GOP won’t risk taking on major gun bills in Congress before the 2018 mid-term elections because they would prefer to increase their hold of the Senate to 60 or more senators before doing so.

But even if they were so inclined to act before 2019, there are serious legal issues to methodically tackle in any major pre-emption legislation (for example, firearms bans or national reciprocity), including federalism concerns, constitutional and statutory authority, and so on. These will not be easy tasks, nor will our opposition allow them to go unchallenged.

The best thing President-Elect Trump could do in the short term (i.e. within the next year) is to immediately nominate a pro-Second Amendment rights justice to the Supreme Court to fill (as if anyone could) Justice Scalia’s seat, restoring the 5-4 Heller balance of power, then immediately appoint pro-Second Amendment jurists to the more than 100 federal court vacancies within the circuit and district courts.

And we badly need the Supreme Court to start taking Second Amendment cases again. But more than that, we need a very strong decision overturning a lower court (like the 9th Circuit) that sends a clear “you’re wrong, and knock it off NOW!” message to all of the judges playing games with our constitutional rights.

Ultimately, most of the battles for gun rights in places like California, New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey will be in the federal courts. And, with some notable exceptions, it has been a very rough ride for our side so far.

But there is cause for hope, and we’re cautiously optimistic that FPC and other pro-gun organizations will be able to successfully restore Second Amendment rights and eventually strike down many of the issues Californians will be facing in 2017.

9. We MUST keep fighting hard to stop new laws while the lawsuits work their way up to the Supreme Court.

Here’s a shocker: California is solidly blue. Proposition 63 passed with 63% of the vote.

And, even though it might sound like a good idea, there is just no practical way that gun rights supporters could fund and pass any serious referendum initiatives, ballot initiatives, or state constitutional amendments.

Politically, in California, the best offense is a strong policy program defense that stops as many new gun control schemes as possible while the major Second Amendment cases work their way up to the Supreme Court.

We MUST continue to block bills in the Legislature and push Second Amendment lawsuits up to the Supreme Court.

With Congress locked up for at least the next 2 years, anti-gun groups are shifting their tens of millions of dollars of annual expenditures and significant infrastructure – including millions of dollars of pro bono legal help from anti-gun lawyers, as well as the mainstream media and millions of dollars of free coverage – to the states and municipalities.

This is not a rumor or speculation. It’s already happening. And as you know, lawsuits take time – often many years – to fully resolve.

We gun owners and Second Amendment advocates must continue to work as hard as we can to block their efforts to pile on new gun control laws while our other legal action works through the (hopefully much better, soon) federal courts.

In addition to joining FPC as a member of our Grassroots Army, here are some other organizations that you should consider joining and supporting to fight against California’s gun control laws:

If you can, join them all, then STAY ENGAGED and FIGHT ON!

10. Know your rights(!), don’t talk with the police or DOJ without a lawyer present, and have a firearms law attorney on speed dial (just in case).

Notably, none of the gun bills passed in 2016 provided for public education and outreach.

Now, with all of the added and confusing law changes, it’s even more possible that you or someone you know might face a serious firearms-related legal issue.

And it’s also possible that a law enforcement officer might not fully understand the law him or herself (again, no education or outreach), and you could face the seizure of property, arrest, or other legal liability.

So, in case of a firearms-related law enforcement encounter, detainment, or arrest while in California:

1. Say that you’re exercising your right to remain silent and contact an attorney, then remain silent.

2. Contact an attorney for specific legal advice.

3. Never consent to a search, even if the officer is polite. (Important: Make sure the other people you live with know not to give consent!)

4. REMEMBER: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO VOLUNTEER INFORMATION OR OPEN LOCKED CONTAINERS IN THE ABSENCE OF A WARRANT!

We encourage those who require immediate legal assistance to contact one of the attorneys listed below or other competent counsel. Here are some expert firearms law attorneys who can be engaged to provide you specific legal advice should you ever need it:

Sacramento / Northern California

Adam Richards
Rothschild Wishek & Sands LLP
P: 916.444.9845
arichards@rwslaw.com

SF Bay Area

Donald Kilmer
Law Offices of Donald Kilmer
P: 408.264.8489
don@dklawoffice.com

Southern California

Jason Davis
Davis & Associates
T: 949.436.4867
jason@calgunlawyers.com

Clint Monfort
Michel & Associates
P: 562.216.4444
cmonfort@michellawyers.com

Bruce Colodny
Law Offices of Bruce Colodny
P: 800.560.8000
Bruce@GunLaw.com

Support pro-gun legal action, direct advocacy, and grassroots activism by making a donation to FPC below:

 

  • Our secure credit card payments are encrypted and powered by Stripe, which uses tokenization technology to protect your credit card data. We use only COMODO Extended Validation SSL certificates for the highest level of protection and confidence.
    American Express
    Discover
    MasterCard
    Visa

     

  • Due to IRS restrictions on lobbying and campaign expenditures, contributions to FPC are not tax-deductible.


2nd Amendment vs Liberals – aka Teixeira vs Alameda County

9th Circuit opinion on rights of gun stores applies standard, rigorous Second Amendment doctrines

May 16

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decision Monday in Teixeira v. County of Alameda vindicates the Second Amendment rights of gun stores and provides a good model of the Second Amendment doctrines that have been developed by the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. Eugene Volokh’s post has summarized the decision, so I will delve into the doctrinal details.

Facts: Alameda County, Calif., is located on the eastern side of San Francisco Bay. The county’s 821 square miles include Oakland and Berkeley. The county presently has up to 10 gun stores. (The exact number is factually disputed.) In 2010, several entrepreneurs attempted to open a new store, “Valley Guns & Ammo,” in the town of San Leandro, south of Oakland. They believed that there was an unmet need for a store which provides personalized service; this includes gun smithing, hunter safety training and the firearms safety training which is a prerequisite for gun purchases in the state. The owners complied with the many federal and California regulations pertaining to firearms stores. The West County Board of Zoning Adjustment found that there was a “public need” for the store, that the store complied with the general zoning plan for the area and that the store would have no adverse impact on residents.

However, Alameda County has a general rule against the location of any gun stores within 500 feet of a residentially zoned area, a K-12 school, a pre-school or day care center, another firearms sales business, or any establishment where alcohol is sold or served.

The store was 446 feet from a residential area, as the crow flies. (By foot, bicycle, or automobile, the travel distance was more than 500 feet, partly because the store’s location and the residential area are separated by an interstate highway.) The Zoning Board voted to grant a variance. Then, the San Lorenzo Village Homes Association filed an appeal to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, because some of the association’s members “are opposed to guns  and their ready availability and therefore believe that gun shops should not be located” in the community. The supervisors, perhaps sharing the association’s naked prejudice against the exercise of constitutional rights, sustained the appeal.

Litigation ensued. The district court granted a motion to dismiss. The 9th Circuit reversed, in Teixeira v. County of Alameda. For purposes of ruling on the motion to dismiss, the 9th Circuit assumed that all facts alleged in the complaint could be proven at trial. The crucial fact alleged by plaintiffs was that the 500 foot rule had the effect of prohibiting any new gun stores in the unincorporated land of the county. (Population density in Alameda County is more than 2,000 persons per square mile, according to the 2010 census. Population density in the U.S. as a whole is 85 persons per square mile. Alameda County’s population density is greater than Taiwan (1,655) but less than Bangladesh (2,477).)

Equal Protection: The plaintiffs had brought claims under 14th Amendment due process, 14th Amendment equal protection and the Second Amendment. By the time the case got to the 9th Circuit, the due process claim had been dropped. The 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection claim. The panel explained that when there is an enumerated textual right (here, the Second Amendment) constitutional challenges are best resolved under the specific doctrines for that right, rather than under the general principles of equal protection.

While equal protection usually involves a “suspect classification” (e.g., a classification by race or sex), plaintiffs can also bring a “class of one” claim. Such a claim alleges that the plaintiff has been treated differently from other persons who are in all relevant respects identical to the plaintiff. Valley Gun could not make this showing; there was no evidence that Alameda County had given permits to other gun stores which needed a variance from the 500-foot rule. (The other gun stores in the county were apparently opened before the 500-foot rule was created.)

Third-party rights: The panel followed Supreme Court precedent by ruling that gun stores may assert the third-party constitutional rights of their customers. The Teixeira court cited the foundational modern case for this rule, Craig v. Boren (U.S. 1976) (liquor stores may assert equal protection rights of their customers, against state law which set different legal ages for alcohol purchases, based on the sex of the customer). The doctrine dates back at least to Pierce v. Society of Sisters (U.S. 1925) (operators of religious schools may assert the 14th Amendment rights of their customers to guide their children’s education; ban on all non-government K-12 schools held invalid).

Two-step Test: Like most other circuits, the 9th Circuit analyzes Second Amendment cases under “a two-step inquiry, which begins by asking whether a challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment; if the answer is in the affirmative, we apply the appropriate level of scrutiny.” So the first question is to consider “whether the commercial sale of firearms implicates the Second Amendment right to keep and to bear arms by reviewing the ‘historical understanding of the scope of the right.’”

History: Like other circuits, the 9th Circuit looked first at the periods of the ratification of the Second Amendment (1791) and the 14th Amendment (1868) (making Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments). The historical analysis showed that commerce in firearms was universally understood to be part of the right to arms. The American Revolution had been caused in part by the British government’s embargo on the shipment of firearms and gunpowder to the American colonies. Had the British suppressed the revolution, their plan was to prohibit the manufacture or import of arms without a special license. But, wrote the 9th Circuit, the British “never had the opportunity to put his plan into action. Having freed themselves from the rule of King George III, Americans turned their attention to fashioning a constitutional order that would preserve the rights they had shed blood defending at Lexington and Concord, Trenton, and Yorktown.” Among the sources cited by the 9th Circuit was my Harvard Law Review Forum article “Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce?

In the early republic, the liberty of firearms commerce was recognized. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1793, “Our citizens have always been free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them.” Likewise, at the time of the 14th Amendment, it was understood that the “right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them.” Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 178 (1871). (Andrews, which struck down a ban on handgun carrying, was cited in Heller and McDonald. It has always been among the most influential Second Amendment cases. For more on Andrews, see my article “The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation,” forthcoming in the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy.)

Logic: The 9th Circuit agreed that “where a right depends on subsidiary activity, it would make little sense if the right did not extend, at least partly, to such activity as well.” This is true for the use of contraceptives. Carey v. Population Servs., Int’l (U.S. 1977) (“Limiting the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives to licensed pharmacists clearly imposes a significant burden on the right of the individuals to use contraceptives”). And for newspaper ink. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minn. Comm’r of Revenue (U.S. 1983) (special tax on newspaper ink violates First Amendment). The principle applies just as much to the Second Amendment. Ezell v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2011) (right to arms would be meaningless without right to “maintain proficiency” by “training and practice” at a shooting range); Illinois Ass’n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2014) (right to arms includes “the right to acquire a firearm” so city ban on all gun stores is void); Mance v. Holder (N.D. Tex. 2015) (“operating a business that provides Second Amendment services is generally protected by the Second Amendment); Radich v. Guerrero (D. Northern Mariana Islands, Mar. 28, 2016) (Second Amendment protects “an eligible individual’s right to purchase a handgun, as well as the complementary right to sell handguns.”). Of the three cited district court decisions, two were not appealed. Mance is currently pending before the 5th Circuit.

Even if history and logic were inconclusive, the 9th Circuit had already held that the Second Amendment protects the sale of ammunition. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2014). So it would be contrary to circuit precedent to assert that the Second Amendment does not protect the sale of firearms.

For the same reasons that firearms sales are part of the Second Amendment, so is the safety training which Valley Guns wishes to provide.

In the 9th Circuit, as in other circuits, the government has the burden of proving that a firearms law is outside the scope of the Second Amendment as traditionally understood. The government did not carry this burden.

Heller: The Hillary Clinton campaign has stated that she believes that “Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe.” This is plainly incorrect. Heller and McDonald expressly stated that some gun controls are permissible. Relevant to Teixeira was Heller‘s language that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on … longstanding laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Heller called such controls “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.”

The Circuit Courts are split on whether the language is dicta, with the 9th Circuit being on the non-dicta side. U.S. v. Vongxay (9th Cir. 2010). But the split hardly matters, since all circuits consider recent Supreme Court dicta to be nearly as binding as a Supreme Court holding.

Does the Heller language mean that any law restricting commercial sales is constitutional? That would be absurd, wrote the 9th Circuit. “If such were the case, the County could enact a total prohibition on the commercial sale of firearms. There is no question that ‘[s]uch a result would be untenable under Heller.’” (Quoting the most-influential post-Heller Circuit Court case, the 3rd Circuit’s U.S. v. Marzzarella (3d Cir. 2010)). The 9th Circuit continued: “Indeed, if all regulations relating to the commercial sale of firearms were exempt from heightened scrutiny, there would have been no need to specify that certain ‘conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms’ were ‘presumptively lawful.’” (The court also quoted my Harvard article, which makes a similar point.)

So not every law against firearms commerce is automatically presumed valid. The question to ask is whether Alameda County’s zoning law is of a type that is “longstanding.” Being several decades old is not old enough. (The D.C. handgun ban in Heller was 33 years old by the time it got to the Supreme Court.)  Like all Circuit Courts, the 9th Circuit recognized that the government bears the burden of proof on “longstanding.” The county failed to meet its burden of proof. There was no historical evidence of restrictions on the location of gun sales in 1791 or 1868. Indeed, general zoning laws did not appear until the early 20th century. In a previous case, the 9th Circuit had held that the federal ban on gun possession by domestic violence misdemeanants was not longstanding. The “first federal firearm restrictions regarding violent offenders were not passed until 1938.” U.S. v. Chovan(9th Cir. 2013).

To qualify as “presumptively lawful” under Heller, a prohibition must be “longstanding and closely match a listed prohibition” or “there must be ‘persuasive historical evidence establishing that the regulation at issue imposes prohibitions that fall outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment.’” (Quoting the 9th Circuit’s Jackson.)

Heightened scrutiny: That a gun control is not “presumptively lawful” under the two-step test does not mean that it is automatically invalid. Circuit Courts which have evaluated the domestic violence misdemeanants have typically held that the ban is not longstanding, have then applied intermediate scrutiny and have ruled that the ban passes intermediate scrutiny. So what level of scrutiny to apply for the gun store ban?

The verbal formulations employed by the circuits vary, but they all make the same basic point that the closer a law comes to the Second Amendment core, the higher the government’s burden of proof. For example, since domestic violence convicts are not “law-abiding citizens,” the government had to make a “strong showing,” whereas a law which affected law-abiding citizens would require “a stronger showing.”  U.S. v. Skoien (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc). In the 9th Circuit, “just as in the First Amendment context, we consider: (1) how close the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and (2) the severity of the law’s burden on the right.” (internal quotations omitted) (citing Jackson and Eugene Volokh, “Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense,” 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009)).

“Here, there is no question that an ordinance restricting the commercial sale of firearms would burden ‘the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon,’ because it would inhibit his ability to acquire weapons. We are therefore satisfied that such a regulation comes close to the core of the Second Amendment right.” (internal cites omitted). Because “state and federal laws require that gun retailers perform background checks to confirm that customers are not criminals,” the county’s gun store ban implicates the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Intermediate scrutiny would probably be appropriate for a normal zoning law, which allowed gun stores in only typical retail locations. But a zoning law which “functioned as a total ban on all new gun retailers” would require a stronger showing. The 9th Circuit adopted 7th Circuit’s Ezell test, which had been created for Chicago’s ban on all gun ranges: “not quite ‘strict scrutiny.’” That is the standard for the district court to apply on remand, assuming that the plaintiffs can prove that the 500-foot rule does amount to a prohibition.

The district court had wrongly held that the gun store ban did not implicate the Second Amendment. In the alternative, the district court “went through the motions” of applying heightened scrutiny. As the panel had pointed out during oral argument, that was improper, because there had not yet been any evidence presented. The government cannot carry its burden under heightened scrutiny merely by asserting what it might be able to prove later.

Moreover, the district court had misapplied Supreme Court precedent. One of the “presumptively lawful” gun controls mentioned in Heller is “forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” The district court had said that all residential areas are “sensitive places.” This contradicts Heller, which held that D.C.’s ban on handguns in the home, and its ban on any operable long gun in the home, violated the Second Amendment.

Of course the prevention of crime is an important government interest. But “the district court failed to explain how a gun store would increase crime in its vicinity. The court instead simply accepted the County’s assertion without exacting it to any scrutiny, in a fashion that more closely resembled rational basis review.”

As a fallback, the county had drawn an analogy to the First Amendment’s “secondary effects” doctrine. In City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books (2002), the Supreme Court held that a city may impose especially restrictive zoning laws on adult bookstores because of their secondary effects– namely that such stores tend to attract prostitution and other harmful activity. As long as the city was not aiming to suppress the bookstore’s speech, then zoning laws could regulate the stores’ locations, to reduce the harms of the secondary effects. But the district court failed to require “at least some evidentiary showing that gun stores increase crime around their locations. Likewise, the record lacks any explanation as to how a gun store might negatively impact the aesthetics of a neighborhood.” In fact, the record seemed to indicate that the county was motivated by hostility towards lawful gun ownership, which under Heller and McDonald is an impermissible purpose.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and joined by Judge Carlos T. Bea. A short dissent by Judge Barry G. Silverman argued that the prohibition of all new gun stores was not a Second Amendment problem. “Conspicuously missing from this lawsuit is any honest-to-God resident of Alameda County complaining that he or she cannot lawfully buy a gun nearby.” Although Valley Gun promised to offer services which other stores do not, “good customer service . . . is not a constitutional right.”

The majority answered that such a brusque dismissal would not be accepted for an “ordinance that targeted bookstores.” (Indeed, given that virtually every book which is commercially available can be obtained online, a complete ban on bookstores in a county might have hardly any effect on the ability of customers to obtain books. That alternative book or firearms vendors are available does not justify prohibitions on new retail stores.)

I would also add that the firearms safety training services to be offered by Valley Guns are constitutional rights (per Ezell), and especially so because California mandates such training for exercising the right to acquire a firearm or the right to hunt. Training aside, good customer service does have constitutional dimension for the Second Amendment. A good store can help a customer select a firearm that is appropriate for the user’s current knowledge (e.g., revolvers are simpler to use and maintain than are semi-automatic handguns) and abilities (e.g., some firearms and calibers are better choices for persons with small stature who would have greater difficulty with high-recoil firearms).

The 9th Circuit majority quoted McDonald: the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” Thus, wrote the Teixeira majority, “Just as we have a duty to treat with suspicion governmental encroachments on the right of citizens to engage in political speech or to practice their religion, we must exert equal diligence in ensuring that the right of the people to keep and to bear arms is not undermined by hostile regulatory measures.” While the “government enjoys substantial leeway under the Second Amendment to regulate the commercial sale of firearms … [t]he Second Amendment requires something more rigorous than the unsubstantiated assertions offered to the district court.”

Congratulations to attorney Donald Kilmer for this important victory. For more on Second Amendment doctrine in general, see my draft article “The Federal Circuits’ Second Amendment Doctrines.”

Volokh Conspiracy newsletter

An independent voice on law and public policy.

CITY COUNCIL OF PLEASANT HILL CA LOSES vs US CONSTITUTUION!

It appears that the City of Pleasant Hill Council members – probably on the advice of their losing counsel – have agreed to pay $400,000, in advance of the December 16th 2016 scheduled Attorneys Fees Hearing court date.
(See the entire case court calendar below).

Questions: Could the $400,000 of taxpayers’ funds have been better spent? Could the Pleasant Hill Police Department use the $400k to improve public safety? Was this blatant anti-2nd Amendment attempt by the City Council but a folly doomed to fail? Should the City Council be liable for wasting taxpayer funds? Could they have been inspired, or even encouraged by California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D)ummy? (If so, chalk another in her “stupid idiot” column).

Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: CIVIL PETITION
Filing Date: 12/23/2013
Complaint Status: DISPOED
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PETITIONER CITY ARMS EAST, LLC First Paper Fee Paid
WRIGHT, ROBERT C
2 PETITIONER THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION First Paper Fee Paid
3 RESPONDENT CITY OF PLEASANT HILL DISPOSED 02/19/2016
4 RESPONDENT THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL DISPOSED 02/19/2016

Case MSN13-1922 – Actions

Viewed
Date
Action Text
Disposition
12/16/2016 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION
12/01/2016 FEE RECEIVED FOR STIP & ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF REPLY BRIEF FROM CITY ARMS EAST, LLC Not Applicable
12/01/2016 STIP & ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF REPLY BRIEF FILING DEADLINE RE MTN FOR ATTYS FEES Not Applicable N/A
11/29/2016 STIP & ORDER FOR CONT OF REPLY FILING DEADLINE SENT TO CLERKS OFFICE FOR FILING Not Applicable
11/08/2016 STIPULATION & ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF REPLY BRIEF FILING DEADLINE FILED Not Applicable N/A
11/04/2016 STIP & ORDER TON CONT. REPLY BRIEF FILING DEADLINE SENT TO CLERKS OFFICE FOR FILING Not Applicable
10/14/2016 STIPULATION & ORDER RE-SETTING HEARING ON MTN FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED Not Applicable N/A
10/12/2016 STIP & ORDER RESETTING HEARING DATE SENT TO CLERKS OFFICE FOR FILING Not Applicable
10/05/2016 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE OFF-CALENDAR
09/07/2016 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOT HEARD/CONT
06/30/2016 REFUND MISCELLANEOUS TRUST Not Applicable
06/10/2016 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION COMPLETED
06/03/2016 STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF MOTION HEARING FILED Not Applicable
05/27/2016 OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL/CITY COUNCIL. Not Applicable N/A
05/27/2016 PROOF OF SERVICE BY FEDEX OF OPP TO MTN FOR ATTORNEYS FEES; DECL; REQ JUD NTC ON R C WRIGHT; C A LIVINGSTON FILED; SERVED ON 05/27/16 Not Applicable N/A
05/27/2016 DECLARATION OF JANET COLESON FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF RSPS OPPOSITION TO PTRS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES Not Applicable N/A
05/27/2016 DECLARATION OF LAURIE CARR MIMS FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF RSPS OPPOSITION TO PTRS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES Not Applicable N/A
05/27/2016 REQUEST OF CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED Not Applicable N/A
05/12/2016 SUPPLEMENTAL DEC OF ROBERT WRIGHT ISO MTN FOR ATTY FEES FILED Not Applicable
05/12/2016 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL FILED RE: SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF MTN AND MTN FOR ATTY FEES AMENDED MEMO OF P&A, SUPPLEMENTAL DECS ISO MTN Not Applicable N/A
05/12/2016 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF P&A ISO MTN FOR ATTY FEES FI LED Not Applicable N/A
05/12/2016 SUPPLEMENTAL DEC OF CRAIG LIVINGSTON ISO MTN FOR ATTY FEES FILED Not Applicable
05/12/2016 PETITIONERS SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND M OTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED Not Applicable N/A
05/04/2016 PETITIONERS AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION F OR ATTONEYS FEES FILED Not Applicable N/A
04/29/2016 COPIES Not Applicable
04/29/2016 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL FILED RE: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND SUPPORT DOCUMENTS Not Applicable N/A
04/29/2016 DECLARATION OF CRAIG A. LIVINGSTION FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES Not Applicable N/A
04/29/2016 DECLARATION OF ROBERT C. WRIGHT FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES Not Applicable N/A
04/29/2016 DECLARATION OF CLEMENT L. GLYNN FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTYS FEES Not Applicable N/A
04/29/2016 DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE G. KEANE FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES Not Applicable N/A
04/29/2016 DECLARATION OF PETER E. TAUSSIG FILED RE: ISO MTN FOR ATTORNEYS FEES Not Applicable N/A
04/29/2016 REQUEST OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED Not Applicable N/A
04/29/2016 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION ISO MTN FOR ATTY FEES Not Applicable N/A
04/29/2016 HEARING ON MOTION WAS SET FOR 6/10/16 AT 9:00 IN DEPT. 34
04/29/2016 MOTION TO/FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION
04/20/2016 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES EXCEEDING Not Applicable N/A
04/20/2016 NOTICE OF/TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FILED BY THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION Not Applicable N/A
04/20/2016 DECLARATION OF CRYSTAL L VAN DER PUTTEN FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE MEMORANDUM OF POINT Not Applicable N/A
04/20/2016 EX-PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE MEMORANDUM EXCEEDING ALLOWED PAGE LIMITS FILED BY THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION Not Applicable
04/20/2016 OVERPAYMENT IN EXCESS OF $10.00 RECEIVED FROM LIVINGSTON LAW FIRM Not Applicable
04/20/2016 RECEIPT FOR OVERPAYMENT Not Applicable
03/04/2016 10:00 AM DEPT. 34 COURT TRIAL – LONG CAUSE/ 6 DAY(S) VACATED
02/29/2016 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL BASED ON MOOTNESS FILED Not Applicable N/A
02/29/2016 COPIES Not Applicable
02/19/2016 STIPULATION FOR JUDMENT OF DISMISSAL BASED ON MOOT NESS AND LACK OF ACTUAL CONTROVERY AND JUDGMENT F Not Applicable N/A
02/18/2016 STIP FOR JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL & SIGNED ORDER SENT TO CLERKS OFFICE FOR FILING Not Applicable
02/16/2016 STIP AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL SENT TO DEPT. 34 W/SASE Not Applicable
02/16/2016 7:00 AM DEPT. 34 CHECK FOR STIPULATED FORM OF JUDGMENT VACATED
02/09/2016 10:00 AM DEPT. 34 ISSUE CONFERENCE VACATED
02/08/2016 NOTICE OF/TO WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONERS MOTION FOR FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC Not Applicable N/A
02/05/2016 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION VACATED
12/04/2015 10:00 AM DEPT. 34 COURT TRIAL – LONG CAUSE/ 6 DAY(S) NOT HEARD/CONT
10/28/2015 10:00 AM DEPT. 34 ISSUE CONFERENCE NOT HEARD/CONT
10/23/2015 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION NOT HEARD/CONT
10/07/2015 STIP & ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED PRO TEMPORE REPORTER SIGNED AND FILED Not Applicable N/A
10/07/2015 10:01 AM DEPT. 34 SPECIAL SET HEARING ON: STATUS CONFERENCE SET BY COURT PER ATTY. GOLDBERGS EMAIL COMPLETED
10/05/2015 SPECIAL SET HEARING WAS SET FOR 10/07/15 AT 10:01 IN DEPT. 34
08/05/2015 PROOF OF SERVICE BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER OF MTN FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOCS ISO OF MTN, ETC ON -SEE LIST- FILED; SERVED ON 08/04/15 Not Applicable N/A
08/05/2015 REQUEST OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED Not Applicable N/A
08/05/2015 DECLARATION OF DMITRIY L DANILEVSKY FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Not Applicable N/A
08/05/2015 DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE G. KEANE FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Not Applicable N/A
08/05/2015 SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA Not Applicable
08/05/2015 HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS SET FOR 10/23/15 AT 9:00 IN DEPT. 34
08/05/2015 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Not Applicable N/A
08/05/2015 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION N/A
05/27/2015 (U.J.) ANSWER TO 1ST AMENDED CIVIL PETITION OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC FILED BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL Not Applicable N/A
05/13/2015 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOT HEARD/CONT
05/12/2015 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER PRO TEMPORE & REPORTER AGREEMENT FILED Not Applicable N/A
05/12/2015 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE COMPLETED
05/06/2015 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOT HEARD/CONT
04/22/2015 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER PRO TEMPORE & REPORTER AGREEMENT FILED Not Applicable N/A
04/22/2015 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Complete
04/21/2015 ORDER AFTER HEARING ON DEMURRER TO AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION W/ CERT MAIL – FILED Not Applicable N/A
03/18/2015 8:45 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOT HEARD/CONT
02/25/2015 SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY FILED. ROBERT C WRIGHT SUBSTITUTES OUT AS ATTORNEY FOR THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION AND IS REPLACED BY CRAIG A. LIVINGSTON Not Applicable N/A
01/30/2015 7:00 AM DEPT. 34 DEMURRER TO 1ST AMD PETN BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION BY COURT UPON RECEIPT OF REPORTERS AMD TRANSCRIPT VACATED
01/23/2015 STIP & ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER PRO TEMPORE & REPORTER AGREEMENT – FILED Not Applicable N/A
01/23/2015 1:30 PM DEPT. 34 HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED CIVIL PETITION OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC FILED BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL COMPLETED
01/23/2015 1:30 PM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Complete
01/12/2015 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WAS SET FOR 1/23/15 AT 13:30 IN DEPT. 34
12/12/2014 10:30 AM DEPT. 34 HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED CIVIL PETITION OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC FILED BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL Complete
12/11/2014 STIP & ORDER CONTINUING HRG ON DEMURRER TO PETITIONERS AMENDED PETITION – FILED Not Applicable N/A
11/21/2014 1:30 PM DEPT. 34 HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED CIVIL PETITION OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC FILED BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL Complete
10/31/2014 PLEASANT HILLS REPLY MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE SEVERABILITY OF SECTION 9.35.040(A)(4) OF THE FIRE Not Applicable N/A
10/31/2014 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL/EMAIL OF RESPONSE TO OPENING BRIEF; REQ FOR JUDICIAL NTC ON SEE SERVICE LIST FILED; SERVED ON 10/31/14 Not Applicable N/A
10/31/2014 RESPONSE TO OPENING BRIEF REGARDING THE SEVERABILITY OF OF THE FIREARMS ORDINANCE FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION Not Applicable N/A
10/31/2014 REQUEST OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED Not Applicable N/A
10/24/2014 PETITIONERS MEMORANDUM RE FIREARMS ORDINANCES SEVERABILITY FILED Not Applicable N/A
10/24/2014 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL FILED RE: PLEASANT HILLS OPENING BRIEF RE FIREARMS ORD SEE SERVICE LIST 10/24/14 Not Applicable N/A
10/24/2014 DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG FILED RE: PLEASANT HILLSS OPENING BRIEF RE FIREARMS ORD Not Applicable N/A
10/24/2014 PLEASANT HILLS OPENING BRIEF RE SEVERABILITY OF SECTION 9.35.040 (A)(4)/FIREARMS ORDINANCE Not Applicable N/A
10/10/2014 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER PRO TEM & REPTR AGMT FILED Not Applicable N/A
10/10/2014 10:00 AM DEPT. 34 HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED CIVIL PETITION OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC FILED BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL Complete
09/12/2014 5:00 PM DEPT. 34 CHECK FOR FILING OF DEMURRER OR MTN FOR JMT ON PLEADINGS VACATED
09/12/2014 10:00 AM DEPT. 34 COURT TRIAL – SHORT CAUSE/ 2 DAY(S) VACATED
09/12/2014 10:00 AM DEPT. 34 HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED CIVIL PETITION OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC FILED BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL Complete
09/09/2014 REQUEST OF CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED Not Applicable N/A
09/09/2014 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL FILED RE: REPLY MEMORANDUM ISO RESPS DEMURRER TO PTN AMENDE D PTN, RESP TO PTRS OBJ, REQ FOR JUD NTC ON 9-9- Not Applicable N/A
09/09/2014 RESPONDENTS RESPONSES TO PTR S OBJECTIONS TO EVI DENCE REFERRED TO IN RESPONDENTS DEMURRER TO Not Applicable N/A
09/09/2014 REPLY MEMORANDUM ISO RESPS DEMURRER TO PTRS AMEN ED PTN Not Applicable N/A
08/29/2014 3:00 PM DEPT. 34 ISSUE CONFERENCE NOT HEARD/CONT
08/29/2014 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL/EMAIL OF PTRS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER; OTHER DOCS ON SEE SERVICE LIST FILED; SERVED ON 08/29/14 Not Applicable N/A
08/29/2014 REQUEST OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED Not Applicable N/A
08/29/2014 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO AMENDED PETITION FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC AND THE NATIONAL SHOOTING. Not Applicable N/A
08/29/2014 REQUEST OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED Not Applicable N/A
08/29/2014 OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE REFERRED TO IN RSPS DEMURRER TO AMD PETN FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION Not Applicable N/A
08/29/2014 DECLARATION OF ANDREW E SCHOUTEN FILED RE: PTRS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO AMENDED PETITION Not Applicable N/A
08/29/2014 10:00 AM DEPT. 34 ISSUE CONFERENCE VACATED
08/13/2014 STIPULATION & ORDER RE FILING OF AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FILED Not Applicable N/A
08/07/2014 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS/PHONE NUMBER OF ATTORNEY FIRM ROBERT C WRIGHT N/A
08/01/2014 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL ISO RESPS DEMURRER TO PTRS AMENDED PETITION Not Applicable N/A
08/01/2014 PRF OF SVC BY E MAIL OF DEMURRER TO PTN, MPA, ON 8 -1-14 SEE SVC LIST Not Applicable N/A
08/01/2014 HEARING ON DEMURRER WAS SET FOR 9/12/14 AT 10:00 IN DEPT. 34
08/01/2014 DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED CIVIL PETITION OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC FILED BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL Not Applicable N/A
07/24/2014 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: FILING OF AMENDED VERIFI ED PTN FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FILED Not Applicable N/A
07/08/2014 STIP & SIGNED ORDER RE: FILING AMD PETN FOR WRIT SENT TO CLERKS OFFICE FOR FILING (W/ $20 CHECK) Not Applicable
07/03/2014 PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE FILED ON 1ST AMENDED CIVIL PETITION OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC AS TO THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL WITH SERVICE DATE OF 07/02/14 Not Applicable N/A
07/03/2014 PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE FILED ON 1ST AMENDED CIVIL PETITION OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC AS TO CITY OF PLEASANT HILL WITH SERVICE DATE OF 07/02/14 Not Applicable N/A
07/03/2014 NOTICE OF/TO ENTRY OF ORDER RE HRG DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FILED BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL Not Applicable N/A
07/03/2014 (U.J.) 1ST AMENDED CIVIL PETITION OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC FILED Not Applicable N/A
07/01/2014 STIP/[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: FILING OF AMENDED PTN SENT TO D34 WITH $20.00 CHECK AND SASE Not Applicable
07/01/2014 STIP & ORDER RE: FILING AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION SENT TO CLERKS OFFICE FOR FILING Not Applicable
07/01/2014 ORDER RE HEARING DATE & BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEMURRER T THE AMENDED PTN Not Applicable N/A
06/30/2014 STIP & ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER PRO TEMPORE AND REPORTER AGREEMENT FILED Not Applicable N/A
06/30/2014 8:45 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE COMPLETED
06/19/2014 STIP & ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER PRO TEMPORE & REPORTER AGREEMENT FILED Not Applicable N/A
06/19/2014 8:30 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Complete
04/30/2014 STIPULATION & ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER PRO TEMPORE & REPORTER AGREEMENT FILED Not Applicable N/A
04/30/2014 8:30 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Complete
04/28/2014 ORDER GRANTING APP OF LAWRENCE G KEANE TO APPEAR AS COUN SEL PRO HAC VICE Not Applicable N/A
04/22/2014 ORDER GRANTING APPL. TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE SENT TO CLERKS OFFICE FOR FILING Not Applicable
04/16/2014 8:30 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOT HEARD/CONT
04/09/2014 JOINT MEMORANDUM ON TRIAL PROCEDURES FILED BY PLAI NTIFF & RESP Not Applicable N/A
04/04/2014 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 HEARING ON APPLICATION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE ( ATTORNEY LAWRENCE G KEANE) GRANTED
03/20/2014 RESPONDENTS CITY OF PLEASANT HILL AND THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCILS STATEMENT OF Not Applicable N/A
02/27/2014 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Complete
02/19/2014 RECEIVED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF LAWRENCE G KEANE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE Not Applicable N/A
02/19/2014 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL OF APPLICATION OF LAWRENCE G KEANE – PRO HAC VICE ON KEKER & VAN NEST FILED; SERVED ON 02/14/14 Not Applicable N/A
02/19/2014 NOTICE OF/TO APPLICATION OF LAWRENCE G KEANE FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION Not Applicable N/A
02/19/2014 HEARING WAS SET FOR 4/04/14 AT 9:00 IN DEPT. 34
02/19/2014 APPLICATION/MOTION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION (ATTY: ROBERT C WRIGHT)
02/19/2014 10:51 AM DEPT. 34 DEFAULT DEPARTMENT WAS CHANGED FROM 06 TO 34. Not Applicable
02/06/2014 THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL IS EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES. Not Applicable
02/06/2014 CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL IS EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES. Not Applicable
02/06/2014 (U.J.) ANSWER TO CIVIL PETITION FILED 12/23/2013 OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC FILED BY CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, THE PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL Not Applicable N/A
01/29/2014 8:30 AM DEPT. 34 SPECIAL SET HEARING ON: STATUS CONFERENCE TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE SET BY DEPT. 33 EX PARTE DEPARTMENT ON 12/23/13 COMPLETED
01/24/2014 RECEIVED STIP/ORDER; SENT TO D34 NO FEE (EXEMPT) AND SASE PROVIDED Not Applicable N/A
01/15/2014 PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE FILED ON CIVIL PETITION FILED 12/23/2013 OF CITY ARMS EAST, LLC AS TO CITY OF PLEASANT HILL WITH SERVICE DATE OF 01/09/14 Not Applicable N/A
12/31/2013 5SS CALENDARED ON 01/29/14 IN DEPT. 06. HAS BEEN UPDATED TO 01/29/14 IN DEPT. 34. Not Applicable
12/23/2013 SPECIAL SET HEARING WAS SET FOR 1/29/14 AT 8:30 IN DEPT. 06
12/23/2013 CASE ENTRY COMPLETE Not Applicable
12/23/2013 COLOR OF FILE IS GOLDENROD Not Applicable
12/23/2013 CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO DEPT. 06
12/23/2013 (U.J.) PETITION TO/FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION, DECLARATORY FILED Not Applicable N/A

Case MSN13-1922 – Pending Hearings

Date
Action Text
Disposition
Image
12/16/2016 9:00 AM DEPT. 34 HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BY CITY ARMS EAST, LLC, THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION

         

My Free Speech Platform