RE: Mandatory reporting of background check failures

[Don Kilmer]

California has a procedure whereby any person can conduct a background check
on themselves. 

 

See: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pfecfaqs

 

And: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/pfecapp.pdf

 

First.  What would the crime be: Perjury?  The falsehood must be knowing,
willful and material.  Many people don't know at the time they fill out a
gun purchase form that their conviction is still valid or hasn't been
expunged, etc., etc., etc.,   Attempted Felon-in-Possession?  

 

Second. The state of WA will merely clog its criminal court dockets with
crimes that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  

 

Finally, it seems to me that WA is trying to implement a version of CA's
APPS system without spending the time, money and training on a real system. 

 

See:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/armed-prohib-pers
on-system.pdf

 

Yeah.  It looks like WA is following in CA's footsteps in slowly becoming a
police state. 

 

Donald E. J. Kilmer, Jr.

Attorney at Law (SBN: 179986) 

Law Offices of Donald Kilmer, A.P.C.

1645 Willow Street, Suite 150

San Jose, California  95125

Email:   d...@dklawoffice.com

Web:   www.DKLawOffice.com

Voice: (408) 264-8489

 

This electronic message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege.
All rights are reserved.  Counsel should assume that all correspondence is
blind copied to my clients. 

 

From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
g...@gunfacts.info
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 7:58 AM
To: Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Mandatory reporting of background check failures

 

Washington State is toying with the idea of compelling FFLs to report when a
purchaser fails a background check.

 

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/senate-surprises-with-vote-on-firearms-bi
ll/433001920

 

The notion is that the purchaser, if they knew they were prohibited, lied on
the sundry forms and thus have committed a crime.

 

What are the con law aspect to this? Can FFLs be compelled to do work for
the state? Is there a privacy issued involved (disclosing personal info
about the buyer)? Does reporting create endangerments for the FFL or anyone
else?

 

 

Guy Smith

  g...@gunfacts.info

www.linkedin.com/in/gunfacts/  

 

 

___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: banning 'assault weapons'

[Don Kilmer]

What makes this decision absurd, is that if this case had been adjudicated in 
1890, well after the 2nd Amendment's actual incorporation via the 
constitutional text of the 14th Amendment, the court would be upholding a state 
ban on lever-action rifles. 

Sure, the case is about guns, but at its heart, it's about technology that 
state actors believe to be "dangerous." 

Dangerous to whom is a question left to the student. 

This email may be protected by attorney/client communication. 
Sent from Don Kilmer's iPad Pro. 

> On Feb 23, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Will Brink  wrote:
> 
> I loath to sound so flippant, if it looks like an M16, it is to those
> intent on removing 2A Rights and the minor issue of facts irrelevant. The
> end justified the means in their view. So, perhaps a presentation of the
> facts to a court may sway them, I will not hold my breath.
> 
> 
> Henry Schaffer wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Will Brink  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> From the Slate article:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "The state recognized that the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v.
>>> Heller
>>> protects citizens’ right to keep handguns in the home.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> But it argued that
>>> the firearms it had proscribed constituted “dangerous and unusual
>>> weapons,” which the Heller court said could be outlawed. Indeed,
>>> Maryland
>>> pointed out, the Heller court explicitly declares that especially
>>> dangerous weapons “that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles
>>> and the like—may be banned.”
>>> 
>> 
>> Does the AR-15 fall into this category? M16 rifles are partially banned
>> since, as "machineguns", they are both subject to the NFA of 1934 and any
>> manufactured after 1986 are really banned (for non-gov't ownership.)
>> Also,
>> they are clearly "useful in military service".
>> 
>> The AR-15 is *not* a "machinegun", and I'm not aware that it has been
>> used in the US military service or in any other military service. But it
>> does *look* a lot like the M16.d
>> 
>> The AK-47 as generally found in the US also is not a "machinegun" and
>> again I'm not aware of any military use. What is confusing is that the
>> *military* (machinegun) version has the same name, in addition to them
>> looking alike.
>> 
>> Are semi-automatic rifles that look like military weapons "dangerous and
>> unusual"? It appears that there are over 2 1/2 million (maybe 4 million)
>> AR-15 rifles owned by people in the USA(
>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_a
>> ssault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html) I cant find the US ownership
>> number for the AK-47, but I'll guess a larger number because it is a less
>> expensive gun and generally considered less desirable. Add in other
>> semi-automatic rifles with replaceable magazines - and we're likely well
>> over 5 million - maybe approaching 10 million.
>> 
>> Does the "unusual" label fit?
>> 
>> 
>> Wha

___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington

[Don Kilmer]

What is troubling is that PLCAA was written and intended to be a species of 
“qualified immunity” for protecting citizens exercising their Second Amendments 
rights and to specifically protect those who supply the means of exercising 
that right.  Now of course qualified immunity is a judge made defense for 
police and other government officials that is made up out of whole cloth.  
Whereas the Second Amendment is an enumerated right and the PLCAA is COTUS 
exercising one of their  Article I powers.  

 

This case bears watching. 

 

Don Kilmer

 

From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:44 PM
To: List Firearms Reg
Subject: RE: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington

 

   Same reason that, for instance, state libel lawsuits stay in 
state court even when there’s a federal First Amendment defense.  “[I]t is now 
settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a 
federal defense, including the defense of pre-emption, even if the defense is 
anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that 
the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”  Caterpillar, Inc. v. 
Williams (1987), 
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1945964317752725102

 

   Eugene

 

From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Olson, .
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:34 PM
To: Henry Schaffer <h...@unity.ncsu.edu>
Cc: List Firearms Reg <firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington

 

The coverage and meaning of the PLCA is a FEDERAL question.  What is it doing 
in state court?

On Feb 22, 2016 18:19, "Henry Schaffer" <h...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467688334/ar-15-gun-maker-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-filed-by-sandy-hook-parents

 

All I know is that I heard this item today - and the emphasis was on how the 
*style* of the rifle indicated that Remington shouldn't have manufactured it 
for sale into the civilian market and therefore that the 2005 Protection of 
Lawful Commerce and Arms Act shouldn't apply.

 

I read a number of the comments and again the style was frequently mentioned.

 

The above has links to a number of news sources, I didn't see any to court 
documents.

 

--henry schaffer


___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: New Stanford gun control study

[Don Kilmer]

The study is pretty easy to pick apart using the FBI crime stats website.  Also 
it is pretty easy to control for the most violent cities with the strictest gun 
control:  New York, Chicago, Detroit, Wash D.C., New Orleans.  

 

Donald E. J. Kilmer, Jr. 

Attorney at Law (SBN: 179986)

Law Offices of Donald Kilmer, A.P.C.

Email:  mailto:d...@dklawoffice.com d...@dklawoffice.com

Web:  http://www.dklawoffice.com/ www.DKLawOffice.com 

Voice: (408) 264-8489

 

This electronic message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. 

Counsel should assume that all correspondence is blind copied to my clients. 

 

From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Olson, Joseph E.
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:38 PM
To: Greg Jacobs
Cc: Firearms Reg, List
Subject: Re: New Stanford gun control study

 

In obtuse academic-speak they admit they are just guesses wrapped in a red 
ribbon.




**
Professor (Emeritus) Joseph Olson, J.D.(Honors, Duke)   
  o   651-523-2518  
Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037) 
   f651-523-2236
St. Paul, MN  55113-1235
 c   612-865-7956

jol...@hamline.edu mailto:jol...@hamliine.edu 
http://law.hamline.edu/constitutional_law/joseph_olson.html

 

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Greg Jacobs grjtw...@earthlink.net wrote:



Today's Topics:

   1. New Stanford gun control study (Daniel D. Todd)


--



Has anyone reviewed the methodology and findings of the new Stanford study?

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html


It flies in the face of all of the other research posted on the Internet.  
That's not to say the concealed carry permittees never get into gun crime 
trouble but the Stanford study simply has to be using misstated data, skewed 
findings, etc. Considering the source I'm skeptical from the outset.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/

***GRJ***
___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

 

___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Don Kates

[Don Kilmer]

I am in pretty regular contact with Don B. Kates.  He has asked me to
publish this notice.  It is not for general distribution, but it is intended
to keep friends and colleagues updated on his status. 

 

Some of you may have noticed an absence of Don B. Kates making the rounds on
various email lists.  Don is doing well but has been experiencing various
diabetes-related problems of late and he is under the supervision of medical
professionals.  He is alert and maintains his good spirits and sense of
humor, but is off-line and not engaging in general correspondence at this
time.  He does not want or need flowers, food or sympathy, but those around
him do want to make sure he does not suffer from boredom.  If you would be
interested in providing some large print (18pt type or larger) versions of
recent law review articles and briefs/opinions in important cases (or
anything history or animal/pet-related), please let me know.  Meanwhile he
wants you to know he is happy and doing well and sends his regards and best
wishes to all of you for a great new year.

 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Donald E. J. Kilmer, Jr. 

Attorney at Law (SBN: 179986)

Law Offices of Donald Kilmer, A.P.C.

Email:  mailto:d...@dklawoffice.com d...@dklawoffice.com

Web:  http://www.dklawoffice.com/ www.DKLawOffice.com 

Voice: (408) 264-8489

 

This electronic message may be protected by the attorney client privilege. 

Counsel should assume that all correspondence is blind copied to my clients.


 

___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.