You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Gun Rights Crusaders Target State Over Definition of "Assault Weapon" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:18 PM
Original message
Gun Rights Crusaders Target State Over Definition of "Assault Weapon"
Advertisements [?]
Gun Rights Crusaders Target State Over Definition of "Assault Weapon"

By Joe Eskenazi Fri., Nov. 18 2011 at 12:00 PM

​The term "assault weapon" has always rankled Second Amendment absolutists. Handled properly, an umbrella could be an "assault weapon." Considering the purpose of a weapon, the term "assault weapon" is rather redundant.

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.

The REAL backlash cometh.
Refresh | +16 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -Gun Rights Crusaders Target State Over Definition of "Assault Weapon" beevul  Nov-29-11 08:18 PM   #0 
  - Good for Richards...  Maine_Nurse   Nov-29-11 08:38 PM   #1 
  - A better option is to brand those attracted to aggressive "looks" of guns as unfit to own them.  Hoyt   Nov-30-11 05:51 AM   #14 
     - Maybe a face tattoo  ileus   Nov-30-11 07:05 AM   #15 
     - Better idea...  discntnt_irny_srcsm   Nov-30-11 01:14 PM   #23 
        - barcode on the cheek, and implanted GPS.  ileus   Nov-30-11 01:16 PM   #25 
        - I like the barcode idea...  discntnt_irny_srcsm   Nov-30-11 02:17 PM   #28 
        - Totally off topic but...  RSillsbee   Nov-30-11 04:42 PM   #33 
           - Slight correction there  Euromutt   Dec-01-11 12:51 PM   #36 
     - For the same reason I like to avoid some people.  Remmah2   Nov-30-11 07:16 AM   #16 
     - "I think"  rl6214   Nov-30-11 11:30 AM   #17 
     - You may THINK that  We_Have_A_Problem   Nov-30-11 11:33 AM   #18 
     - What sort of aesthetics would you consider "aggressive"?  Atypical Liberal   Nov-30-11 12:13 PM   #19 
     - Not to be a prick, but the CX4 is an UGLY gun  RSillsbee   Nov-30-11 12:55 PM   #20 
        - I like it.  Atypical Liberal   Nov-30-11 02:03 PM   #27 
           - I'm a wood guy but I'm glad you like it.  RSillsbee   Nov-30-11 04:34 PM   #32 
              - I have seen AR-15's with wood - I think they are cool! n/t  Atypical Liberal   Dec-01-11 10:47 AM   #34 
     - you win funniest post of the day  Tuesday Afternoon   Nov-30-11 01:14 PM   #22 
     - Umm, the guns you consider "aggressive looking" per a 1950s aesthetic  benEzra   Dec-04-11 07:17 PM   #37 
     - How does "popular" change the equation, and popular among whom (right wing militias)?  Hoyt   Dec-05-11 05:40 PM   #40 
        - Does that description include Democrats? If not then why not? n/t  oneshooter   Dec-05-11 06:54 PM   #44 
        - these guns made and marketed to appeal to gunners' baser instincts  Oneka   Dec-05-11 07:45 PM   #45 
        - IOW, those guns cause "moral harm"- to you. n/t  friendly_iconoclast   Dec-05-11 09:12 PM   #46 
        - "gunners' baser instincts"  PavePusher   Dec-05-11 09:22 PM   #47 
        - The Department of Scientific Disarmament Instruction hasn't defined it yet.  friendly_iconoclast   Dec-05-11 09:31 PM   #48 
        - Popular among whom? Ah, yes...  benEzra   Dec-06-11 03:47 PM   #51 
     - Did you read what they called an assault weapon?  DissedByBush   Dec-05-11 10:35 PM   #49 
        - While your point is taken, that's a picture of an M1, not an M1A.  Abin Sur   Dec-06-11 08:14 AM   #50 
           - Good catch  DissedByBush   Dec-06-11 10:15 PM   #52 
  - Hope he wins big....Uncle Sams thumb needs a good smack with a hammer.  ileus   Nov-29-11 08:45 PM   #2 
  - He's after the state of California, whose "assault weapon" law *is* vague  friendly_iconoclast   Nov-29-11 08:48 PM   #4 
  - The article at the link is laughable. As one commenter (correctly) pointed out to the author  friendly_iconoclast   Nov-29-11 08:47 PM   #3 
  - Might as well have a picture of a Type III phaser rifle with under-barrel photon-torpedo launcher  krispos42   Nov-29-11 08:57 PM   #5 
     - Which is more commonly known as the AK-47  petronius   Nov-29-11 08:58 PM   #6 
        - *snort*  krispos42   Nov-30-11 02:15 AM   #11 
  - SF Weekly?  -..__...   Nov-29-11 09:02 PM   #7 
  - Old school MSM agit-prop; stale but still quaint. nt  SteveM   Dec-05-11 05:08 PM   #38 
  - all guns are assault weapons, that is what they are for nt  msongs   Nov-29-11 10:08 PM   #8 
  - yeah, right  one-eyed fat man   Nov-30-11 01:38 AM   #10 
  - What is a flare gun?  PuffedMica   Nov-30-11 04:59 AM   #12 
  - Oh,, oh,, I know,, I know,,,,  Oneka   Nov-30-11 05:36 AM   #13 
     - They put volume controls on those things? I thought tone controls were enought. nt  SteveM   Nov-30-11 01:18 PM   #26 
  - Would it be possible for you to make less sense? n/t  We_Have_A_Problem   Nov-30-11 01:03 PM   #21 
  - Oh, you should be called as an "expert" witness in this case! nt  SteveM   Dec-05-11 05:08 PM   #39 
     - Poster sounds more of an expert than those here concerned only about losing access to more guns.  Hoyt   Dec-05-11 05:43 PM   #41 
        - LOL  We_Have_A_Problem   Dec-05-11 05:52 PM   #42 
           - I was thinking maybe Andy Kaufman or Sacha Baron Cohen.  friendly_iconoclast   Dec-05-11 05:54 PM   #43 
  - That reminds me.  AtheistCrusader   Nov-30-11 01:00 AM   #9 
  - "Guns rights crusaders?" "litigious firearms aficionado groups?"  SteveM   Nov-30-11 01:14 PM   #24 
     - Simply because of the idiotic laws on "assault weapons" in California...  spin   Nov-30-11 02:17 PM   #29 
        - The truly scary thing about that flowchart....  We_Have_A_Problem   Nov-30-11 02:31 PM   #30 
        - What's more scary...  Euromutt   Dec-01-11 12:48 PM   #35 
        - Ah, the old transistor radio circuit board. nt  SteveM   Nov-30-11 03:29 PM   #31 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC