Gun groups, sheriffs suing L.A.
Oct 24, 2015 23:58:26 #
Lawsuit aims to stop city from enforcing limit on capacity of firearm magazines.
BY EMILY ALPERT REYES
Los Angeles city lawmakers jumped into the national fray over gun control earlier this year, v****g unanimously to ban firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Gun control activists said that eliminating those kinds of ammunition magazines would reduce the bloodshed of mass shootings by forcing attackers to stop their rampages sooner to reload. And they said they were confident the new rules would stand up in court: Federal judges had rejected requests to stop similar laws in San Francisco and Sunnyvale from being enforced.
At a July rally outside Los Angeles City Hall, City Councilman Paul Krekorian declared that if gun rights activists wanted to sue the city, bring it on.
Now their critics are doing just that. The California Rifle and Pistol Assn. and other opponents including dozens of county sheriffs from elsewhere in California
filed a lawsuit Friday against the city in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Gun rights groups have sharply criticized such bans, arguing that many lawful gun owners have chosen such ammunition magazines to defend themselves.
This time around, however, attorneys said they are challenging the ban on the grounds that it is preempted by California law, not on the basis of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, as they did in the Sunnyvale and San Francisco cases. Their lawsuit argues that the L.A. ban adds to a patchwork quilt of laws that travelers must attempt to navigate under threat of criminal penalties.
Gun rights advocates used a similar argument when they successfully sued to overturn a San Francisco law that banned handgun possession for most city residents. The new lawsuit seeks to stop L.A. from enforcing the ammunition law and to strip the rules out of the city code.
The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports stricter gun laws, countered Friday that the fact that California has regulations tied to such magazines doesnt mean that local cities and counties cannot pass their own rules. Los Angeles City Atty. Mike Feuer brushed off the legal claims as baseless, declaring that the city would fight the lawsuit and win.
And Krekorian, who championed the new restrictions, called it a predictable and desperate attempt by [National Rifle Assn.] lawyers to strike down a common-sense policy that will keep our city and its people safe.
Because the vast majority of mass shooters possess and use large capacity magazines to k**l and maim innocent people, laws like this are critical to safeguard our citys residents, Krekorian said in a statement.
State law already generally bans the manufacturing of such ammunition magazines, offering them for sale or bringing them into the state. But California does not actually prohibit people from possessing them, which Krekorian and other gun control advocates see as a dangerous loophole.
Under the state rules, residents can generally continue to hold onto such magazines if they owned them in the state before a certain date. The groups suing Los Angeles argued that its ordinance contradicts that and other state law because California specifically and purposefully permitted the continued possession of magazines that are now banned under the city rules.
There are literally tens of thousands of these magazines in existence throughout California that can be legally owned and current state law allows them to be possessed, said Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, who is a plaintiff in the case.
This ban preempts that. It erodes the rights of law-abiding citizens, he said.
In addition, the lawsuit claims that the L.A. ban effectively land locks numerous individuals who are unable to t***sport their magazines anywhere without traveling through Los Angeles despite state laws allowing lawful owners of such ammunition magazines to t***sport them. For instance, it contends that Torrance firearm safety instructor Kenneth Takahashi will find it effectively impossible to get to trainings elsewhere.
The Rifle and Pistol Assn. is the official state affiliate of the National Rifle Assn. but has its own independent board, according to its website. It has been joined in the suit by the California Reserve Peace Officers Assn., the Law Enforcement Alliance of America and gun magazine owners from L.A. and nearby cities.
Bosenko was among 30 county sheriffs who also joined the lawsuit, arguing that the new rules could criminalize anyone whom they have licensed to carry such magazines if they drive through Los Angeles, and could also put the sheriffs themselves at risk.
The L.A. rules exempt any police and military gun owners who are otherwise authorized to possess such magazines and do so while acting within the scope of his or her duties, but the lawsuit argues that means the sheriffs and their deputies could be arrested for having such magazines while off duty in Los Angeles.
L.A.s ban went into effect earlier this year. Gun control activists are now seeking to expand such restrictions across California, advocating for a b****t initiative backed by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom that would prohibit the possession of ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, as well as other measures to toughen state gun laws. emily.alpert@latimes.com Twitter: @LATimesEmily
BY EMILY ALPERT REYES
Los Angeles city lawmakers jumped into the national fray over gun control earlier this year, v****g unanimously to ban firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Gun control activists said that eliminating those kinds of ammunition magazines would reduce the bloodshed of mass shootings by forcing attackers to stop their rampages sooner to reload. And they said they were confident the new rules would stand up in court: Federal judges had rejected requests to stop similar laws in San Francisco and Sunnyvale from being enforced.
At a July rally outside Los Angeles City Hall, City Councilman Paul Krekorian declared that if gun rights activists wanted to sue the city, bring it on.
Now their critics are doing just that. The California Rifle and Pistol Assn. and other opponents including dozens of county sheriffs from elsewhere in California
filed a lawsuit Friday against the city in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Gun rights groups have sharply criticized such bans, arguing that many lawful gun owners have chosen such ammunition magazines to defend themselves.
This time around, however, attorneys said they are challenging the ban on the grounds that it is preempted by California law, not on the basis of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, as they did in the Sunnyvale and San Francisco cases. Their lawsuit argues that the L.A. ban adds to a patchwork quilt of laws that travelers must attempt to navigate under threat of criminal penalties.
Gun rights advocates used a similar argument when they successfully sued to overturn a San Francisco law that banned handgun possession for most city residents. The new lawsuit seeks to stop L.A. from enforcing the ammunition law and to strip the rules out of the city code.
The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports stricter gun laws, countered Friday that the fact that California has regulations tied to such magazines doesnt mean that local cities and counties cannot pass their own rules. Los Angeles City Atty. Mike Feuer brushed off the legal claims as baseless, declaring that the city would fight the lawsuit and win.
And Krekorian, who championed the new restrictions, called it a predictable and desperate attempt by [National Rifle Assn.] lawyers to strike down a common-sense policy that will keep our city and its people safe.
Because the vast majority of mass shooters possess and use large capacity magazines to k**l and maim innocent people, laws like this are critical to safeguard our citys residents, Krekorian said in a statement.
State law already generally bans the manufacturing of such ammunition magazines, offering them for sale or bringing them into the state. But California does not actually prohibit people from possessing them, which Krekorian and other gun control advocates see as a dangerous loophole.
Under the state rules, residents can generally continue to hold onto such magazines if they owned them in the state before a certain date. The groups suing Los Angeles argued that its ordinance contradicts that and other state law because California specifically and purposefully permitted the continued possession of magazines that are now banned under the city rules.
There are literally tens of thousands of these magazines in existence throughout California that can be legally owned and current state law allows them to be possessed, said Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, who is a plaintiff in the case.
This ban preempts that. It erodes the rights of law-abiding citizens, he said.
In addition, the lawsuit claims that the L.A. ban effectively land locks numerous individuals who are unable to t***sport their magazines anywhere without traveling through Los Angeles despite state laws allowing lawful owners of such ammunition magazines to t***sport them. For instance, it contends that Torrance firearm safety instructor Kenneth Takahashi will find it effectively impossible to get to trainings elsewhere.
The Rifle and Pistol Assn. is the official state affiliate of the National Rifle Assn. but has its own independent board, according to its website. It has been joined in the suit by the California Reserve Peace Officers Assn., the Law Enforcement Alliance of America and gun magazine owners from L.A. and nearby cities.
Bosenko was among 30 county sheriffs who also joined the lawsuit, arguing that the new rules could criminalize anyone whom they have licensed to carry such magazines if they drive through Los Angeles, and could also put the sheriffs themselves at risk.
The L.A. rules exempt any police and military gun owners who are otherwise authorized to possess such magazines and do so while acting within the scope of his or her duties, but the lawsuit argues that means the sheriffs and their deputies could be arrested for having such magazines while off duty in Los Angeles.
L.A.s ban went into effect earlier this year. Gun control activists are now seeking to expand such restrictions across California, advocating for a b****t initiative backed by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom that would prohibit the possession of ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, as well as other measures to toughen state gun laws. emily.alpert@latimes.com Twitter: @LATimesEmily
Oct 25, 2015 00:09:13 #
Oct 25, 2015 00:34:47 #
Oct 25, 2015 01:13:31 #
KHH1 wrote:
A Head Shot Neutralizes The Elegant Display of Firepower...I'm Just Saying..... :twisted:
Remember you Negroid...you made that statement because in a day or so you will be posting with some lies about how you never say anything about being violent....you lie so much you are 100% TRASH!
Nappy...you are PA Thetic!
Oct 25, 2015 01:14:30 #
KHH1 wrote:
That only works if there is only one of them, maybe two. But when there are a hundred of them, it ain't the time for elegance.A Head Shot Neutralizes The Elegant Display of Firepower...I'm Just Saying..... :twisted:
Oct 25, 2015 01:38:35 #
Kuntusbojanglessambo wrote:
I wish I wasn't a convicted felon. I h**e not being able to own a gun. And its all because I'm black.
Spooky. You don't have to ever worry about being victimized by a white man with a gun.
You should know that based on all current statistics you're more likely to be victimized by one of your own spook brothers......................PUNK!!!
Oct 25, 2015 01:46:58 #
America Only wrote:
Remember you Negroid...you made that statement because in a day or so you will be posting with some lies about how you never say anything about being violent....you lie so much you are 100% TRASH!
Nappy...you are PA Thetic!
Nappy...you are PA Thetic!
phuck you...you talk about h*****g black people and that other piece of schit crackah talks about d**gging people behind trucks....phuck you little p-ssy..you muthaphuckahs need to learn that in life, you get what you give.....and I said A head shot...not ME taking it you dishonest b-tch
Oct 25, 2015 21:56:44 #
America Only wrote:
Remember you Negroid...you made that statement because in a day or so you will be posting with some lies about how you never say anything about being violent....you lie so much you are 100% TRASH!
Nappy...you are PA Thetic!
Nappy...you are PA Thetic!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Oct 25, 2015 21:57:18 #
KHH1 wrote:
A Head Shot Neutralizes The Elegant Display of Firepower...I'm Just Saying..... :twisted:
BACKADABUS NAPPY >>>>>
Oct 26, 2015 03:07:44 #
DamnYANKEE wrote:
BACKADABUS NAPPY >>>>>
okay pinky.. small impotent can't satisfy a woman man....you're mad because she's mad also.........
Oct 26, 2015 03:58:52 #
Oct 26, 2015 05:22:35 #
Kevyn wrote:
Coming soon to a playground near you!
Oh...does that mean you have finished with all your inflatable child sized dolls and are now going to use what you have practiced on them with kids in the playground? Is that what you comment "coming soon to a playground near you", means?
Oct 26, 2015 05:28:22 #
KHH1 wrote:
okay pinky.. small impotent can't satisfy a woman man....you're mad because she's mad also.........
Here is another total failure of spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and really, you can think of nothing more than this crap to post? You bring this up (as a topic in your responses so much) I think maybe in your recent past you got yourself in a tangle with some fairly hard core white boys....and they carried their "buck knives" while having their encounter with you...and now...you have to be called..."dinky winky" because they whacked off 2 inches of the 2 1/2 you did have.....and now...you h**e all w****s and speak of nasty things every chance you get....yep...we know now what your story is....yes indeed......"dinky winky nappy unhappy" you!
Oct 26, 2015 05:32:13 #
KHH1 wrote:
phuck you...you talk about h*****g black people and that other piece of schit crackah talks about d**gging people behind trucks....phuck you little p-ssy..you muthaphuckahs need to learn that in life, you get what you give.....and I said A head shot...not ME taking it you dishonest b-tch
I'll never hang a man that did not deserve it! (Judge Roy Bean)......
I see no reason for you to be upset if someone wants to d**g you behind a truck....are they asking you for gas money? Are they going to charge you for the ride? If they are going to do that for free...hell...that may be the best offer you have had in the past 20 years!
Oct 26, 2015 05:35:32 #
Kevyn wrote:
Coming soon to a playground near you!
I bet you don't get within a half mile of most playgrounds...lets face it...the cops seeing some moron driving a jeep wearing a red dress...instant traffic stop....and then you'd have to deal with a few dozen or so parents....THEY see you pull up driving that jeep wearing a red dress...they might just yank you out of that jeep and start beating you to death right then and there! Say...can I watch them do that? Hell I'll bring the pop corn!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.