Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
9Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CGF, CAL-FFL Letter to LA City Council re Magazine Ban

CGF, CAL-FFL Letter to LA City Council re Magazine Ban

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,671|Likes:
Published by Brandon Combs
Letter from attorney Jason Davis to the Los Angeles City Council on behalf of The Calguns Foundation and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees regarding the proposed ban on firearm magazines
Letter from attorney Jason Davis to the Los Angeles City Council on behalf of The Calguns Foundation and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees regarding the proposed ban on firearm magazines

More info:

Published by: Brandon Combs on May 03, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/05/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
The
 
 Law Offices of 
 
DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
27201 Puerta Real, Ste 300, Mission Viejo, California 92691Direct (949) 310-0817/Fax (949) 288-6894 Jason
@CalGunLawyers.comwww.CalGunLawyers.com
May 1, 2013The Honorable City CouncilOf the City of Los AngelesRoom 395, City Hall200 North Spring StreetLos Angeles, California 90012
VIA FAX & EMAILRe: COUNCIL FILE NO: 13-0068
 – 
PROHIBIT POSESSION OF HIGH-CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINESPosition: OPPOSE
Dear Members of the Los Angeles City Council,I write on behalf of The Calguns Foundation, Inc. (Calguns) and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc. (CAL-FFL) and their members to provide this opposition and pre-
litigation demand regarding your proposal to regulate “Large Capacity Magazines.”
File Number 13-
0068: “Large Capacity Magazines
 
Calguns and CAL-FFL oppose
the City’s proposed outright ban on “
large capacity magazine
s”
,which would include barring possession of lawfully acquired, lawfully possessed, and in somecases lawfully registered large-capacity magazine firearms
which the City Attorney’s
office hasincorrectly
identified as a “public nuisance
.
 Not only is such an ordinance a violation of theUnited States Constitution, it would be preempted under California law.
The City Attorney’s office states that “it is clear that under s
tate law a large-capacity magazine is
a nuisance, which is subject to confiscation and destruction.” In fact, the proposed ordinance
mis-
states California law by proffering that “any large
-capacity magazine is a nuisance under California Penal Code section 32390 and subject to confiscation and summary destructionwhe
rever found within the state.”
State law, however, contradicts this statement. First, it is important to note that possession of large capacity magazines is permitted under California law. Specifically, Penal Code section
32310 provides that “any person in this state who manufactures, or causes to be manufactured,
imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, anylarge-
capacity magazine ….” i
s guilty of a crime. Conspicuously omitted from this provision is
 
The Law Offices of 
DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
 
COUNCIL FILE NO: 13-0068
 – 
LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES
 May 1, 2013
 
Page 2any restriction on the possession of large-capacity magazines
 – 
because possession is not prohibited. And, the courts would agree; the
courts’ “role in interpreting or construing a statuteis to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent.”
 Laurel Heights improvement Assn. v. Regents of U.C 
., 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1127 (1993). To do so, the “court must follow the languageused in a statute and give it its plain meaning.”
 In re Rudy L
., 29 Cal.App. 4th 1007, 1011(1994).
[I]f a statute announces a general rule and makes no exception thereto, the courts canmake none. [citation.] A court may not insert into a statute qualifying provisions not intended by the Legislature and may not rewrite a statute to conform to an assumed legislative intent not
apparent. [Citation.]”
 Burnsed v. State Bd. Of Control 
, 189 Cal.App. 3d 213, 217 (1987).
Additionally, “specific [statutory] provisions should be construed with reference to the entire
statutory system of which it forms a part, in such a way that the various elements of the overall
scheme are harmonized.”
 Bowland v. Municipal Court 
, 18 Cal. 3d 479, 489 (1976). Common
 principles are used to harmonize statutes, such as “when a statute omits a specific matter from its
coverage, the inclusion of such matter in another statute on a related subject demonstrates an
intent to omit the matter from the coverage of the statute in which it is not mentioned.” Here, the
Penal Code is rife with prohibitions on the possession of certain firearms and firearm-relatedaccessories
 – 
but no such prohibition exists with respect to large-capacity magazines.A review of the legislative history relating to the restrictions placed upon firearm magazinesmakes it absolutely clear that possession and use of large-capacity magazines were intentionally permitted by the State of California. Specifically, the Senate Public Safety Committeecommented that the bill enacting the large-
capacity magazine restrictions “would make it a crime
to do anything with detachable large-capacity magazines after January 1, 2000
 – 
except possessand personally use them.
(Sen. Com. Pub. Safety, SB 23, 1999 Cal. Stat. ch. 129 p.7 (emphasis
added).
The City Attorney’s office
relies upon the language contained in Penal Code section 32390 toallege that all large capacity magazines became a nuisance to possess in 2012
 – 
when that provision became effective. Penal Code section 32390, however, was part of a legislation package to reorganize and renumber the statutes governing control of firearms without changingtheir substantive effect. In fact, the non-substantive nature of the
laws’
new text was codified inPenal Code section 16005, which states: Nothing in the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 isintended to substantively change the law relating to deadlyweapons. The act is intended to be entirely nonsubstantive ineffect. Every provision of this part, of Title 2 (commencing withSection 12001) of Part 4, and every other provision of this act,including, without limitation, every cross-reference in every provision of the act, shall be consistent with the nonsubstantiveintent of the act.Thus, all changes made to the Penal Code as a part of the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 were entirely nonsubstantive and their previous interpretations and intents remain intact. In

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Louie Duran added this note
Did the city council forget about the LA riots? It was not that long ago! Thousands of people called for police help and the police refused to go to those parts of LA and protect it's citizens that where calling 911, because they where being robbed, beaten, raped, assaulted, car jacked and more! The only stores that survived where the Korean stores, that where being defended by the store owners
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Brandon Combs liked this
Brandon Combs liked this
Brandon Combs liked this
Brandon Combs liked this
Brandon Combs liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->