CA sheriffs sue on L.A. gun magazine law

IMG_0383With gun rights and regulations emerging as a hot-button issue in California politics, the city of Los Angeles has provoked a high-profile lawsuit against a recent prohibition on so-called high-capacity magazines.

“This summer, the City Council banned possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition,” the Associated Press recalled. “Owners have until Nov. 18 to sell the magazines, take them out of the city or surrender them to police.” Failure to abide by the new law would result in a misdemeanor. The July ban came in the wake of reports issued by the L.A. city attorney, according to Courthouse News; it went into effect last month.

Bringing suit

The response from law enforcement and gun enthusiasts has been swift. Thirty sheriffs statewide brought suit against the ban, joined by the California Reserve Peace Officers Association and the Golden State’s National Rifle Association affiliate, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, noted the Los Angeles Daily News. “Since 2000, California has outlawed manufacturing or selling high-capacity magazines, but Los Angeles’ ordinance goes further, making it illegal to possess them,” the paper added.

That statewide rule factored into the logic driving the lawsuit. According to the plaintiffs, “when Los Angeles banned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in July, it ‘land locked’ gun owners who already had the legal weapons,” Courthouse News reported:

“Lead plaintiff Shasta County Sheriff Thomas Bosenko says that California has regulated the sale, possession and use of high-capacity magazines — those that hold more than 10 bullets — since Jan. 1, 2000. High-capacity magazines legally acquired before that date were exempt from the state’s ‘regulatory scheme’ and grandfathered in, according to the Oct. 23 lawsuit.”

But some legal analysts have already suggested that the lawsuit could be in vain. “Cities including Sunnyvale and San Francisco also ban possession of high-capacity magazines and have successfully fended off lawsuits from the NRA,” the Daily News observed.

A broader battle

At the same time, the Los Angeles ban follows on the heels of a similar law in San Francisco, whose former mayor and now Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has vowed to extend the prohibition across all of California. “He proposes a statewide ban on possession — not just sales — of high-capacity ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds,” as George Skelton noted in the Los Angeles Times. In an interview with Skelton, Newsom said that his plan to circumvent the Legislature by putting the ban on the ballot illustrated “why direct democracy was conceived.” But he remained “vague,” Skelton suggested, about how to enforce the proposed rules, which would require owners “to sell them to a licensed dealer, take them out of state or turn them over to law enforcement.”

Although the plaintiffs challenging L.A.’s law have warned of a patchwork quilt of prohibitions too hard for gun owners to discern and obey, that kind of regime has emerged as the likely alternative to Newsom-style regulations covering the whole of California. Gov. Jerry Brown, known as a relative skeptic toward ever-stricter gun control, has effectively become the only officeholder capable of derailing new statewide rules cracking down on guns or ammunition.

In 2013, on the heels of another threatened lawsuit by the NRA, Brown rejected what would have been among the toughest of state laws. “Brown vetoed Senate Bill 374, which would have banned semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and required firearm owners to register even low-capacity rifles as assault weapons,” the Washington Post reported. “In a message to the Legislature, Brown wrote he didn’t ‘believe that this bill’s blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners’ rights,'” the Post added.

14 comments

Write a comment
  1. 4sure
    4sure 29 October, 2015, 06:29

    If our lawmakers spent as much effort redefining and reinterpreting the 1st, 4th and 8th amendments as they pour into redefining the 2nd amendment, we would not have an issue with drug addicted transients under the one size fits all title of “Homeless” that are illegally camping throughout the State, certainly our forefathers never intended for our civil rights to allow able bodied citizens to force their dysfunction on society with rampant drug/alcohol addiction, illegal camping, environmental degradation, all while being codependent on government assistance. Did they? California legislators need to wake up and tackle the real issues, our towns and city’s are a mess.

    Reply this comment
  2. SPURWING PLOVER
    SPURWING PLOVER 29 October, 2015, 08:55

    Lawmakers and including Govenor Moonbeam had better remember the U.S. Constituions the law of the land

    Reply this comment
    • Dyspeptic
      Dyspeptic 29 October, 2015, 11:15

      Actually the law of the land is whatever 9 black robed judicial sophists say it is. Unsurprisingly, this is a power that the Constitution does not grant them. John Marshall simply arrogated it in Marbury vs. Madison and other early Supreme Court decisions.

      When you can invent rights that don’t exist based on “emanations from penumbras” (like the “right” to murder your fetal infant) and degrade or deny rights that are expressly asserted in the Constitution (like the fundamental right to keep and bear arms), then the document has become meaningless for all intents and purposes. It means whatever the judicial elites want it to mean, which turns the whole purpose of the Constitution on it’s head.

      Fear not though. I’m sure the placidly grazing herds of our fellow citizens will interrupt their dull witted cud chewing and fly swatting any moment now and insist on a return to the real Constitution.

      Reply this comment
  3. Bubba
    Bubba 29 October, 2015, 10:32

    Obey the law? Moonbean, Nusom Hillary and Obama all think they are above the LAW!
    I don’t see any of these Half Wits giving up their ARMED SECURITY DETAILS? They just want to make it easier for themselves to rule in a tyrannical manner! After all, Socialist Dictators prefer unarmed subjects!

    Reply this comment
  4. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 29 October, 2015, 11:36

    If there is one thing we know about Commiefornia voters it is that no idea is too stupid, obnoxious, tyrannical or unethical for them to reject.

    With that in mind it is a foregone conclusion that anything Gavin Gruesome puts on the ballot to attack 2nd Amendment civil rights will pass like grass through a ducks alimentary canal.

    This is the inevitable result of filling a state to bursting with people from foreign countries where there is no tradition of private gun ownership or civil liberty and where public corruption is endemic and accepted as normal. You know, like Mexico, all of East Asia ,the Indian sub-continent and New Jersey.

    Reply this comment
  5. Spurwing Plover
    Spurwing Plover 29 October, 2015, 22:30

    Obama disarms americans while arming terrorists a traitor for sure its time he was impeached and tried for Treason as well as aiding and abetting the enemy

    Reply this comment
  6. Ted E Mind of your Godhead Ted
    Ted E Mind of your Godhead Ted 30 October, 2015, 09:48

    Turns out the President never came for anybody’s guns and the death panels NEVER happened……..You kids turn off that Fox News crap and go to bed!

    Reply this comment
  7. Spurwing Plover
    Spurwing Plover 31 October, 2015, 06:40

    I see where Obama recieved at least three pinnocios from the Washington Post for his big time anti-gun lies caliming it was easier to buy a gun the buy vegatables Woo Hoo Obama now tell us again about the big one that goy away

    Reply this comment
  8. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 1 November, 2015, 08:12

    “4 Dead, Including Gunman, In Colorado Springs Shootings”
    ——————————————-
    Another Rambo wannabe exercising his second amendment rights!! These Right wing gun nuts care more about their weapons than innocent Americans being slaughtered on a daily basis now…..

    Reply this comment
    • 4sure
      4sure 1 November, 2015, 08:34

      What about the vehicle that killed 3, injured 4 in the Bronx trick or treating? Should we ban those too? How about banning people who lack personal responsibility?

      Reply this comment
  9. Desmond
    Desmond 1 November, 2015, 12:36

    Created small problem last night. Dressed up as Mark Leno to pass out candy. Parents called police, got lecture that dressing up that way was scary to kids. Gee, I wasn’t gving away bananas.
    Bet a reality show on that creep would be a hit.

    Reply this comment
  10. Spurwing Plover
    Spurwing Plover 22 November, 2015, 07:58

    NTHEOC the resent inceidnet in Paris with its nations strict Gun Control proves once gain that all gun control adocates your out of your mind

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Harkey’s lawsuit unites capitol foes

Few Capitol battles are as heated as the ongoing feud between the trial lawyers and advocates for tort reform. Yet,

CA students struggle on nationwide exams

California fared poorly in the latest round of a bellwether series of key elementary and middle-school tests. “What’s sometimes called the Nation’s Report Card,

Trump candidacy complicates CA Senate race

  Donald Trump has complicated the already difficult task California Republicans face in blunting Kamala Harris’s dominant campaign for Senate.  With an already unfavorable race to replace Sen.