Yesterday, attorney Donald Kilmer once again represented law-abiding gun owners and The Calguns Foundation before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
This time, Kilmer argued in the federal civil rights lawsuit Haynie v. Harris, which is aimed at forcing California Attorney General Kamala Harris to clarify what constitutes a so-called “assault weapon” so that innocent people don’t continue to be falsely arrested under vague and ambiguous terms.
Plaintiffs Mark Haynie and Brendan Richards were both arrested for being in possession of an unregistered “assault weapon,” even though their rifles were not.
At the time of his arrest in 2009, Plaintiff Mark Haynie’s firearm had a “bullet button” magazine locking device and was legal to possess.
Plaintiff Brendan Richards was jailed for an extraordinary six-day period before authorities realized that his seized weapons were not banned “assault weapons.”
The case was originally dismissed by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who held that there was no basis for either plaintiff to fear future arrest. Following that ruling, Plaintiff Richards was falsely arrested once more by a different law enforcement agency.
The underlying problem, Kilmer argued yesterday, is that Harris – the chief law enforcement officer in the State of California – and her Department of Justice have refused to promulgate any rules or guides to law enforcement on how to accurately identify an “assault weapon” since the Third Edition was published in 2001.
While there is no deadline for a decision, the Ninth Circuit usually issues its opinions in six to twelve months after oral arguments take place and the case is submitted.
Haynie v. Harris was filed in 2010.
Help us support this case and other pro-gun litigation by making a tax-deductible donation to the Calguns Foundation:
[gravityform id="21" title="false" description="false" ajax="true"]