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
Google

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.


http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/assault_wea...



The REAL backlash cometh.
Refresh | +16 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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