It’s an insult to be arrested once for violating a law that is so vague and ambiguous that law enforcement officers cannot tell the difference between what is and what is not a legal firearm under this statute but to be arrested and jailed twice for the same offense is an outrage. Brendan Richards’ dilemma is a textbook example of why the California statute should be nullified.
This nonsense has to stop and the only way to insure that is to show California’s assault weapon statutes and regulations are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. Brendan Richards is not the only citizen faced with this kind of harassment under color of law.
Alan M. Gottlieb
SAF Executive Vice President
November 21, 2011
SAF FILES CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF CALIFORNIA ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’ LAW
[Go SAF and CalGuns!
On my return trip from Reno for the Gun Blogger Rendezvous this year I was strongly advised by a lawyer and others from California to not traverse even a small corner of California even if I did not stop and fully complied with FOPA. I was forcefully told that many California police, prosecutors and judges do not recognize FOPA.
My response was, essentially, does this mean that Alabama and Mississippi don’t have to recognize the 13th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I was told that the Feds enforced those laws with the National Guard and the states backed off. In the case of FOPA the Feds would look the other way. In other words if I got caught with my everyday carry firearm and magazines, unloaded and locked inaccessible to driver and passengers I could spend weeks in jail and months in and out of the courts because the state of California believes it does not have to comply with Federal law.
It’s time the state of California got it’s nanny state tit wound up tight in a wringer.—Joe]