Federal Lawsuit Takes Aim At Vague Definition Of ‘Assault Weapons’


Federal lawsuit takes aim at vague definition of 'assault weapons'A pair of gun rights groups have filed a lawsuit in California alleging that the State’s definition of “assault weapons” is unConstitutionally vague.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Calguns Foundation have been joined by Brendan John Richards in their effort to change the wording of the law. Richards, an Iraq combat veteran, spent six days in jail in May 2010 after police found two pistols and a rifle in the trunk of his car.

Richards was arrested and charged for unlawful possession of an assault weapon. Last September, the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office dropped the charges following a report from the State’s Department of Justice, which indicated that none of Richards’ firearms were considered “assault weapons.”

“Mr. Richards was jailed for almost a week, when he had broken no law because a police officer had a conflicting view and the District Attorney’s office believed him,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

Gene Hoffman, executive director of the Calguns Foundation, said that the broad definition of the law is designed to prohibit “guns that look scary.”

Attorney Don Kilmer of San Jose claims that gun owners in the United States are vulnerable to a system in which police “arrest them first and let the courts sort it out.” He believes this is a direct broach of citizens’ Constitutional rights.

Personal Liberty

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.