AG LOCKYER CLAIMS HE CAN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL FROM FRESNO JUDGES

Josey1

AG LOCKYER CLAIMS HE CAN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL FROM FRESNO JUDGES UNPRECEDENTED COUNTY PROSECUTORS' LAWSUIT CITES DOJ CREATED CONFUSION OVER "ASSAULT WEAPON" LAW In a slap at the integrity of the Fresno courts, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General William Lockyer last week filed a motion to transfer an unprecedented lawsuit brought by county prosecutors and law enforcement out of Fresno and into the Sacramento court. The suit challenges DOJ's implementation of the new state "assault weapon" law. The DOJ's "change of venue" motion argues that the Attorney General cannot get a fair hearing in Fresno County because the DOJ could be "perceived as . . . the distant, oppressive sovereign trampling on the interests of the local residents." The lawsuit (01 CE CG 03182) was filed on September 18, 2001 in Fresno Superior Court by Fresno DA Edward Hunt, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) (a national association of law enforcement officers and civilians), a retired Oakdale Police Chief, and an association of state firearm dealers. Mendocino County District Attorney Norman L. Vroman then joined the suit in November. "The Attorney General is afraid of getting a judge who understands firearms and isn't beholden to Sacramento politics," says Chuck Michel, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs. "Some of this case involves technical firearm issues. If those are understood then the problems with the law become obvious. But it's an insult to Fresno's judges to say they can't be impartial." The unprecedented "prosecutor vs. prosecutor" lawsuit challenges Senate Bill 23, the 1999 amendment to the state's "assault weapon" law that bans firearms based on their cosmetic features. The lawsuit alleges that the California Department of Justice's (DOJ's) regulations for implementing the law, which were supposed to clarify the terms used in the original "assault weapon" statute, in fact do not provide gun owners, dealers, police, or prosecutors with sufficient guidance to determine what features are prohibited and to enforce the law fairly and unilaterally, or to determine how to comply with it. The suit asks a judge to order the law suspended while the problems are fixed. Since it seeks only injunctive "equitable" relief, there would be no jury. "Not only are the regulations themselves ambiguous, but unfortunately the Attorney General, who is the chief law officer in the State under the California Constitution (Art. V, sec. 13), is sending mixed signals to front line law enforcement, prosecutors, and civilians working under him. In fact, DOJ is enacting policies that conflict with its own regulations," new plaintiff DA Vroman says. "The DOJ training class I attended in Sacramento was no help. I simply can't do my job, and I can't do justice, under these confusing circumstances. There has got to be some standard set for everyone to follow." Though not named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, other district attorneys and law enforcement officers have joined Hunt and Vroman in criticizing the DOJ's attempt to implement the state "assault weapon" law. San Francisco District Attorney spokesman Fred Gardner says that "there has been confusion" about what is an assault weapon. Kern County District Attorney Edward Jagels expressed concern about enforcing the law fairly, saying "we repeatedly have to field questions from law enforcement about what it all means. Often, we simply can't tell them." In Ventura County, District Attorney Michael Bradbury said "deciphering these regulations is a near impossible task. If the Legislature wants to condemn a subclass of firearms, they have to identify those firearms clearly. If gun experts can't figure out what this law covers, how is the average law abiding gun owner supposed to know?" And Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Mike Carona agreed that: "The law's requirements are impossible to decipher," he said. "Not just for civilians, for my deputies as well." The ultimate proof of the confusion surrounding the "assault weapon" law's requirements lies in this year's Senate Bill 626 (Perata), recently signed by the Governor. SB 626 repeals a key feature of SB 23, changing it to allow late registration of "assault weapons" by law enforcement officers. SB 626 acknowledges the confusion over which privately owned guns are covered by the law, and particularly over what guns police officers had to register. The bill recognizes and grants immunity to the many police officers who own "assault weapons" but did not register their firearms by the cut off date as required and who are now subject to felony prosecution. But civilians who were equally confused by the regulations have also become unwitting accidental felons for inadvertently violating the law. SB 626 offers them no relief. http://www.crpa.org/pressrls121901.html