Good on your Sheriff. That is a further step than most rhetoric (often hollow) when someone steps up, clearly acknowledging the possible consequences. How many of his professional colleagues, I wonder, understand that "just following the law" didn't work out well at Nuremburg either. I wish him well.

Sheriffs actually have more power than they seem to realize since they are the only law enforcement officers elected by We, the people. And they can deputize We, the people.

So a guy with a felony tax evasion rap or convicted of disorderly conduct should never again own a gun?

The portion of the OP that you focus on:

“...criminals and mentally ill should never be allowed weapons...”

...was really an imprecise aside and not the main point of my post - mea culpa. There are felonies and then there are felonies in the context of gun confiscation statutes. Point well made. And, I understand that convicted felons might be able to petition the feds to see if they might be approved to own weapons. States have thier own set of rules and there may even be differences regarding handguns and long guns. These are also asides and not the intended focus of the OP or this post.

My intended focus in the OP was really for the reader to be focusing on DUE PROCESS in the context of gun confiscation statutes...but...I did say (even if it was merely an imprecise statement said in passing and not the focus) in that post that “...criminals and mentally ill should never be allowed weapons...” so allow me to briefly clarify a bit and elaborate - using your examples of tax evasion and disorderly conduct...and do so in the context of what was my intended focus...DUE PROCESS. Again, mea culpa, but your question does allow me some elaboration which might induce some to read the attached article which was the subject of the OP - and that might get some folks to think about what a well-drafted gun confiscation statute might actually contemplate and include.

So, to address tax evasion and disorderly conduct in the context of gun-confiscation statutes and due process...Ahhh, felony tax evasion - you talking a true tax gangsta ? Millions at issue? Offshore accounts, money laundering?...serious stuff?...sorry no gun if I’m king for a day.

Disorderly only?...yes a felony...but...I’d like to know more...did the accused cause a friggen riot with serious injuries?...or...like under some disorderly state statutes...just made “unreasonable noise?”

Riot? violent behavior with serious injuries? (not self-defense) = typically no gun if I’m king for a day.

In contrast, if “unreasonable noise” ... merely means loud pipes on your Harley...then you can still play if I’m king for a day.

So, to reiterate, the truly significant point of the OP in the context of gun confiscation statutes...REQUIRING that DUE PROCESS generally be granted to an accused pursuant to gun confiscation statutes - generally provides a reasonable opportunity for a judge to address the nuances of your suggested concerns.

Due process...will assure that someone (both sides) will be granted notice and opportunity to be heard...

The judge, listening to both sides should be able to flesh out the underlying truth of the matter asserted as well as the context of the matter and if the statute is properly drafted...exercise some discretion.

Thus, generally speaking, the mere granting of due process - proper notice, a hearing with a true opportunity to be heard - will typically provide an opportunity for a judge to assess whether you are truly dangerous or mentally ill...or both.

Of course, there are circumstances that will require immediate action and judges are human so while not perfect...due process...is not just the best that we’ve got...but it is also a Consitutional guarantee. The ex-parte grabs should truly be a tiny tiny fraction of all cases - highly unusual cases.

And, finally as your examples provide...DUE PROCESS will hopefully (depending on how well the state statute is drafted) provide the opportunity for a reasonable judge to exercise some discretion under a truly lawful gun confiscation circumstance.

A CA judge stands their (Judicial) ground (again)
 

Declaration of unconstitutionality of California's ban on standard-capacity magazines reaffirmed.
The case has been grinding for a few years & the same judge re-affirmed it after it was afffirmed higher & sent back to him. (These are wheels of justice?)
Story.

The opinion document is a decent read.

BFYTW
:cool:

An excellent result - thank you Badger.

Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts. “The judiciary is – and is often the only – protector of individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy.” -- Senator Ted Kennedy, Senate Hearing on the Nomination of Robert Bork, 1987.1

David Kopel provides a good summary below.

District Court Permanently Enjoins California Magazine Confiscation Law
David Kopel|Mar. 29, 2019 6:52 pm

Magazines, California, Second Amendment, Duncan V. Becerra
California's statute to confiscate all magazines over 10 rounds has been permanently enjoined by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The opinion was written by Judge Roger T. Benitez.

Previously, Judge Benitez had issued a preliminary injunction against the confiscation law, and the preliminary injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit, as discussed in this post. Today's decision follows cross-motions for summary judgment, and makes the injunction permanent. The next step in Duncan v. Becerra will be an appeal to the Ninth Circuit by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The 86-page opinion is the most thorough judicial analysis thus far of the magazine ban question. The opinion is founded on a careful analysis of the record, and thus provides an excellent basis for future appellate review on the merits, perhaps one day by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Covering all bases, the opinion analyzes the confiscation law under a variety of standards of review. First is the standard favored by Judge Benitez, what he calls "The Supreme Court's Simple Heller Test." In short, magazines over 10 rounds are plainly "in common use" "for lawful purposes like self-defense." Ergo, they may not be confiscated. The analysis is similar to then-Judge Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion in the 2011 Heller II case in the D.C. Circuit.

The Duncan opinion then examines the confiscation statute under various levels of "heightened scrutiny": categorical invalidation, strict scrutiny, and intermediate scrutiny. The confiscation statute is found unconstitutional under each of these standards.

Under the various heightened scrutiny tests, the government bears the burden of proof. The opinion explains in depth why the evidence put forward by the California Attorney General does not come close to carrying that burden. The core problem is that the Attorney General's evidence, which relies heavily on expert declarations, is speculative, shoddy, or unrelated to the statute at issue.

Nor are there any "longstanding" laws that create a tradition of banning magazines over ten rounds--notwithstanding the Attorney General's efforts to invent such a tradition based on state machine gun controls enacted in the 1920s or 1930s.

The Attorney General's argument that law-abiding citizens do not "need" magazines over 10 rounds is rejected as directly contrary to Heller, which defers to the choices of the American people, not the government, about what is appropriate for self-defense. Several incidents detailed at the beginning of the opinion describe the harms suffered by crime victims who had insufficient defensive ammunition capacity.

Moreover, defense against ordinary criminals may be a leading purpose of the Second Amendment, but it is not the only purpose. "Today, self-protection is most important. In the future, the common defense may once again be most important. Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy." The government may not respond to bad political ideas by censoring speech, nor respond to crime waves "with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals."

Under heightened scrutiny, laws restricting constitutional rights must be "tailored"--in strict scrutiny, "narrow tailoring"; in intermediate scrutiny, "a reasonable fit." But the confiscation statute "is not tailored at all. It fits like a burlap bag. It is a single-dimensional, prophylactic, blanket thrown across the population of the state."

The confiscation statute cannot be saved by invoking the mantra of "deference." First of all, the confiscation law was enacted by ballot initiative, and not by the California general assembly. No deference is due to ballot measures that infringe constitutional rights. Even if the statute were a legislative enactment, the statute is not proven to be constitutional simply because the government offers some evidence. Some courts in Second Amendment cases have adopted an ultradeferential "some evidence" standard, but Judge Benitez disagrees. As he points out, the key case cited by advocates for ultradeference is the Supreme Court's Turner II decision, upholding certain congressional mandates on cable television providers. The Supreme Court majority in Heller rejected Justice Breyer's dissent urging Turner deference in Second Amendment cases. And even if Turner were the controlling case, the Turner Court was hardly lax in its judicial review. The Supreme Court "extensively analyzed over the course of twenty pages the empirical evidence cited by the government, and only then concluded that the government's policy was grounded on reasonable factual findings supported by evidence that is substantial for a legislative determination....Turner deference does not mean a federal court is relegated to rubber-stamping a broad-based arbitrary incursion on a constitutional right founded on speculative line-drawing and without any sign of tailoring for fit."

Congratulations to plaintiffs' attorneys Michel & Associates. While a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit lies ahead, and so perhaps do an en banc and the Supreme Court, today's opinion is a victory for serious judicial review of arms confiscation laws.

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/29...ns-calif/print

Any number of vendors (based on the legal decision posted by Badger above) are currently shipping standard (high) capacity magazines to California.

Experience your freedom all you previously stifled - law abiding - gun owning folks located in California !

OK, fuck Coors. We need a semi-load with a wild Nashville guy that can pick anything on a guitar drivin', and a devil-don't care guy with a shit-hot black Trans-Am to run interference.... any takers?

By some accounts freedom is flying off the shelves and shipping to Cali.

A great organization
 

Here is a great organization that needs to be supported and if you know any Sheriffs past along to.

It was started by the Sheriff that took a lawsuit all the way to the SCOTUS challenging the The Brady Bill

https://cspoa.org

Stand-by Virginians

Knee jerk reaction inbound


here

Link above dead. This one works, for now: https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/06/to...each-killings/

Common Sense Gun Control"?
 

Liberal Democrats want no GUNS in the entire U S A They want total control and all the power to dictate Socialism, Communism, and Populism. NEVER VOTE FOR A LIBERAL.

Its always good to see the media holding up their end of reporting "news"...

CNN's version of le truth:
Source

And the New York Post:
Source

Yet none of the other big media houses mention anything about possible issues at work before crabcock spontaneously killed a bunch of co-workers except for a very brief sentence in a New York Times Post:
Source

Strange coincidence the timing of this one...

Which supports the politician trying to deflect questions about his "liberalness". This provides an opportunity to demonstrate his mindless dedication to the hive.

Never pass up a good tragedy of the serfs to advance your personal agenda.