That darned Constitution getting in the way again

Last week, War on Guns commented on the very pleasant surprise of a pro-freedom ruling in California's Fourth District Appeals Court. This ruling came in the case of Andy Sun, a gun dealer in California who had a large number of so-called "assault weapons"--perfectly legal under federal law, but not under California's draconian laws.

The California authorities may never have realized he had these weapons (he wasn't selling them to California residents), but in order to comply with federal laws, Sun had submitted to an inspection of his inventory by our favorite storm troopers, the BATFE. The BATFE agent, being a BATFE agent, violated the legally mandated confidentiality that was supposed to protect Sun, and tipped off the California Department of Justice. This tip is what led to the raid, and Sun's arrest on the charges of possession of 510 "assault weapons" and 23,000 big, scary magazines (also illegal in California).

The good news mentioned previously is that although Sun was indicted, the judge seems to have known what the Fifth Amendment is for, and that using compliance with federally mandated inspections (under the National Firearms Act) as the basis for the issuance of warrants for violations of state laws, is to force a citizen to incriminate himself. This, of course, is unconstitutional, and for very good reason.

The California "justice" system being what it is, Attorney General Bill Lockyer thought it would be a good idea to appeal the ruling. The Appeal Court's ruling agreeing with the original ruling is what War on Guns reported on last week.

Yesterday another article expressed what sounds like disapproval with the decision to respect Sun's Fifth Amendment rights.

Sun is now immune from prosecution for possessing 510 illegal assault weapons and more than 23,000 rounds of ammunition—enough to keep FBI agents at bay for days.

Since there was no stand-off, no holding "FBI agents at bay for days," that seems like a rather odd choice of words (and besides, according to the first article, it was 23,000 magazines--with no mention of the quantity of ammunition). Actually, as far as I know, even California doesn't regulate the quantity of ammunition a person can possess. The article goes on to mention "high capacity bullets," but doesn't explain what those might be.

This may not be over--the second article states that the DA's office is considering appealing again, this time to the California Supreme Court.

Maybe they will have the contempt for the Bill of Rights that the prosecution is counting on.