{"id":3744,"date":"2011-11-21T20:06:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-21T20:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/2011\/11\/21\/haynie-v-harris-round-ii\/"},"modified":"2019-08-16T18:16:55","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T18:16:55","slug":"haynie-v-harris-round-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=3744","title":{"rendered":"Haynie v. Harris, Round II"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class='__iawmlf-post-loop-links' style='display:none;' data-iawmlf-post-links='[{&quot;id&quot;:16685,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/www.calguns.net\\\/calgunforum\\\/showthread.php?t=496479&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/calguns.net\\\/calgunforum\\\/showthread.php?t=496479&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:16686,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/ia700507.us.archive.org\\\/10\\\/items\\\/gov.uscourts.cand.225676\\\/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.docket.html&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:16687,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/www.archive.org\\\/download\\\/gov.uscourts.cand.225676\\\/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.43.0.pdf&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/archive.org\\\/download\\\/gov.uscourts.cand.225676\\\/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.43.0.pdf&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;}]'><\/div>\n<p>The original case, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.calguns.net\/calgunforum\/showthread.php?t=496479\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Haynie et al v. Harris, was dismissed<\/a> in late October by the US District Court for the Northern District of California because the Court said they didn&#8217;t have a realistic chance of being re-arrested. The Court did give the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.<\/p>\n<p>While the Court was actually considering the motion to dismiss from the State of California, Brendan Richards, one of the plaintiffs, was arrested again for possession of an &#8220;assault weapon&#8221;. Again the charges were dismissed after the state&#8217;s expert determined that Mr. Richards&#8217; M1A was not an assault weapon under California law.<\/p>\n<p>As one commenter on the CalGuns Forum said in response to the question as to what were the odds of this happening, they were &#8220;greater than unrealistic.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/ia700507.us.archive.org\/10\/items\/gov.uscourts.cand.225676\/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.docket.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">An amended complaint <\/a>was filed on November 4th. The complaint can be read<a href=\"http:\/\/www.archive.org\/download\/gov.uscourts.cand.225676\/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.43.0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"> here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><i>SAF FILES CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF CALIFORNIA \u2018ASSAULT WEAPONS\u2019 LAW<\/p>\n<p>For Immediate Release: 11\/21\/2011<\/p>\n<p>BELLEVUE, WA \u2013 The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California\u2019s ban on so-called \u201cassault weapons,\u201d claiming that the statute is \u201cvague and ambiguous\u201d in its definition of assault weapons, leading to the arrest of a California man on two different occasions.<\/p>\n<p>SAF is joined in the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, by the CalGuns Foundation and Brendan John Richards, an honorably-discharged Marine and Iraq war veteran, who was arrested and jailed in May 2010 and August 2011. On both occasions, charges against Richards were dismissed when it was determined that he had not violated the law because firearms in his possession on both occasions were not \u201cassault weapons\u201d as defined by California law. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason A. Davis of Mission Viejo.<\/p>\n<p>Named as defendants in the lawsuit are California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, the Sonoma County Sheriff\u2019s Office and Deputy Greg Myers.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s 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,\u201d said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, \u201cbut to be arrested and jailed twice for the same offense is an outrage. Brendan Richards\u2019 dilemma is a textbook example of why the California statute should be nullified.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOn both occasions,\u201d he continued, \u201cMr. Richards was jailed and had to post non-refundable bail fees. He lost work due to his incarcerations. In both cases, the same Senior Criminalist John Yount issued reports that the firearms in Richards\u2019 possession were not \u2018assault weapons\u2019 under California law. Mr. Richards now has a reasonable fear that his exercise of his fundamental Second Amendment rights will result in more wrongful arrests. We\u2019re delighted to step in, with the CalGuns Foundation, on his behalf.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis nonsense has to stop,\u201d Gottlieb stated, \u201cand the only way to insure that is to show California\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The original case, Haynie et al v. Harris, was dismissed in late October by the US District Court for&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":1,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[4060],"class_list":["post-3744","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-haynie-v-harris"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3744","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3744"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3744\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7435,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3744\/revisions\/7435"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3744"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3744"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3744"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}