Silveira v. Lockyer

312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The California Legislature passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act ('the AWCA') in 1989. The statute renders it a felony offense to manufacture in California any of the semi-automatic weapons specified in the statute, or to possess, sell, transfer, or import into the state such weapons without a permit. Ownership of assault weapons by individuals who lawfully purchased them before the statute's enactment is permitted, so long as the owners register the weapons with the state Department of Justice. It imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. The specified weapons include 'civilian' models of military weapons that feature slightly less firepower than the military-issue versions, such as the Uzi, an Israeli-made military rifle; the AR-15, a semi-automatic version of the United States military's standard-issue machine gun, the M-16; and the AK-47, a Russian-designed and Chinese-produced military rifle. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state. The Legislature found that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings. Ps are nine individuals, some of whom lawfully acquired weapons that were subsequently classified as assault weapons under the amended AWCA. Ps contend that the AWCA is violative of their Second Amendment rights. Ps also challenge on Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection grounds the provision that allows active peace officers to possess assault weapons while off-duty, and one that permits retired peace officers to possess assault weapons they acquire from their department at the time of their retirement. D immediately moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district judge granted the motion. Ps appealed.