Tag: Chuck Michel

Here is some more info on Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for all” initiative from Chuck Michel on Just Guns Radio. Chuck also discusses the latest from the Supreme Court on your right to keep and bear arms…

As you heard in the interview, paid signature gatherers are reportedly “misstating” the effects of the Newsom initiative. This initiative will ban possession of all magazines capable of accepting more than 10 rounds, regardless of when said magazines were purchased. It also requires background checks for all ammunition purchases. Signature gatherers have allegedly been telling the gun muggles in front of Wal-Mart or Target that the initiative will “ban assault weapons” or “require background checks on all gun purchases”. It does neither. If you witness a signature gatherer saying these things, make a video of what you saw and report it to Michel and Associates or to the CRPA. See somethin’, say somethin’!

Anti-gun Legal Legislation News Privacy Self-defense State

Legal News Self-defense


California: San Francisco Magazine Confiscation Begins on Monday, April 7 Protect Yourself and Your Property!

Posted on April 4, 2014

Last November, San Francisco politicians enacted an ordinance banning the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds (so-called “large-capacity” magazines).  This ordinance will make illegal magazines possessed by a vast majority of San Francisco gun owners, and criminalizes the transportation of these magazines through the city.

The ordinance takes effect on Monday, April 7.

While this ordinance will not prevent violent crime or mass shootings, it sadly does limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners to choose to use these magazines to defend themselves and their families.  As most gun owners already know, magazines holding more than ten rounds are standard equipment for many popular pistols and rifles.  These standard capacity magazines are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for a variety of lawful purposes, including self-defense.  San Francisco’s magazine prohibition affects lawful gun owners’ ability to defend themselves, especially in situations potentially requiring more than ten shots.  Since this ordinance does not provide for an exemption for self-defense, you should carefully consider your best alternative options.

Although legal challenges are still pending that may ultimately result in this ordinance being struck down, San Francisco residents and those who drive through the city need to know their rights to avoid being prosecuted for violating this counterproductive new ordinance.

The unfortunate reality in San Francisco, Sunnyvale, New York, Colorado, Connecticut and other places where ill-conceived gun laws are turning honest citizens into criminals, is that gun control laws are fostering an environment of non-cooperation between police and law-abiding citizens who would otherwise be happy to assist police in their investigations.  Sadly, good citizens who are put at risk by laws that deprive them of their Second Amendment rights now need to also know and exercise their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

Compliance Options

 The San Francisco ordinance prohibits the possession of “large-capacity magazines” anywhere “in the City and County of San Francisco.”  This ordinance was to take effect on December 7, 2013, with a ninety-day window to begin complying with the ordinance.  After the NRA filed a lawsuit challenging the ordinance, the City agreed to push the enforcement date back by an additional thirty days until April 7.

 So law-abiding gun owners residing in San Francisco now have until Monday, April 7 to comply with the City’s magazine ban or risk running afoul of the law.

 Anyone who fails to comply is subject to criminal misdemeanor penalties, including fines and jail time.  If you still possess any magazines over ten rounds after April 7, do not attempt to surrender them to law enforcement, as that could subject you to arrest and prosecution. Contact an attorney.

 Possession by Police Officers’ of Personally-Owned Magazines Is Also Banned

The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office has interpreted this ordinance to exempt only official duty magazines when possessed by off-duty law enforcement officers.  There is no exception in the San Francisco ordinance for the many magazines that are personally-owned by active law enforcement officers, nor for retired officers.

Police officers working in or traveling through San Francisco (perhaps en route to one of the several shooting ranges in the area) also face potential criminal liability if they enter the city with magazines holding over ten rounds that were not issued to them for official duty purposes.

What is Considered a “Large Capacity Magazine”

San Francisco’s definition of a “large-capacity magazine” is identical to that found in California Penal Code section 16740.  This includes any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds.  There are three notable exceptions:

  1. Any feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot hold more than ten rounds;
  2. Any .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; and
  3. Any tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

This definition is applicable whether the magazine is assembled or disassembled.  There are also several uses and categories of individuals that are exempt from the magazine ban.  Those exemptions can be viewed here.

You can store your magazines outside of San Francisco.  Be aware, however, that storing your magazines with friends or family outside of San Francisco may qualify as an “unlawful transfer” under state law.  Renting a storage unit or safe-deposit box in your name for storing the banned magazines may be the best option – at least for now.

Know Your Rights, and Assert Them!

Every gun owner who travels in and around San Francisco should beware if they possess magazines that hold over ten rounds.  The San Francisco magazine ban does not exempt visitors to the city or even those just passing through, even if the magazine is in a locked container.  If you are stopped by police and found in possession of a banned magazine, you may be criminally liable.

Residents and those traveling through the city should be prepared in the event police question you about the way you store your firearms or magazines in your home or car.  Typically, police ask questions about whether there are any firearm in your home or car, what type of magazines you may have, how those magazines are stored and who has access to them.

Even if they don’t have a search warrant, police officers are trained to get you to make incriminating statements or admissions that will give them grounds for a warrant or a search.  To learn more about this police practice, readProtect Yourself! California’s Politicized Gun Confiscation Program Threatens Uninformed Gun Owners.  In Section V of this memorandum, the firearms law attorneys at Michel & Associates explain how the police utilize “knock and talks” to try to get incriminating information from uninformed gun owners.  To access this document click here.

If the police knock on your door, try not to talk to them!  Unless they have a search warrant, try not to even open the door.  Instead, provide the officers with this flyer, and tell them that you assert your right to remain silent and want to have an attorney present (actually say those words).

  • Do not “consent” to a search of your person, possessions, car or home.  Insist on a search warrant.  If they don’t have a warrant, refuse the search entirely and close the door.
  • If they have a search warrant, let them in, stand back and say nothing except that you want to call your lawyer.
  • Consult a lawyer immediately. Ask to make a phone call for this purpose.

 For more information and materials on protecting and asserting your Fourth and Fifth amendment rights, visit HERE.

 Status of Legal Challenges

Lawsuits supported by the NRA against San Francisco and Sunnyvale seeking to overturn these magazine bans were filed shortly after the ordinances passed.

Lawyers with Michel & Associates sought preliminary injunctions in court to prevent both Sunnyvale and San Francisco from enforcing these laws while the cases are litigated.  In late February, the U.S. District Court denied the injunction request in the San Francisco case.  On March 5, the U.S. District Court denied plaintiffs’ request for an injunction to stop the Sunnyvale magazine possession ban from going into effect.  Plaintiffs appealed later that same day.

On March 5, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to enjoin the law from taking effect.  On March 6, the courtdenied the request for an emergency stay while the underlying dispute is litigated on appeal.

On March 10, an emergency request that the ordinance be enjoined was filed with a Supreme Court Justice who handles such motions in the Ninth Circuit.  Statistically speaking, these emergency requests are rarely granted, and Justice Kennedy denied the emergency request.  It is not surprising that Justice Kennedy did not grant this very rarely issued extraordinary relief.  As the courts themselves make clear, this type of denial is not a reflection on the merits of the underlying appeal, which is still going forward in the Ninth Circuit.

Now the first legal brief is currently due in early May, and law enforcement and civil rights groups are already lining up to support us in that effort to stop these infringements on Second Amendment rights.

Nonetheless, as a result of these rulings, the magazine possession bans are in effect as of March 6 in Sunnyvale, and April 7 in San Francisco.  This important Second Amendment issue now continues on appeal and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since the Sunnyvale case is already on appeal, the San Francisco case was temporarily dismissed.  But it will be re-filed upon conclusion of the Sunnyvale litigation.

Help Stop These Laws from Passing in Other Jurisdictions

Let us know if you hear of things pending in your city!  With your help, we can defeat these proposals before they become law.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd has made clear its intention of continuing to push anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s agenda throughout California.  Sunnyvale’s Mayor claims that residents from several neighboring cities, including Mountain View and Los Altos, have already reached out to him to push the same or similar measures in their cities.  Former state Assemblywoman Sally Lieber claims the campaign for gun control in Mountain View has already begun.  And the City of Los Angeles has been considering, among other measures, a magazine ban for some time now.

You can assist in the fight to defend gun owners’ rights in California courts by donating to the NRA Legal Action Project today.  For a summary of some of the many actions the NRA has taken on behalf of California gun owners, including the tremendous recent victory in the Peruta case, click here.

Second Amendment supporters should be careful about supporting litigation efforts promised by other individuals and groups without access to the necessary funding, relationships, firearm experts and experienced lawyers on the NRA’s national legal team. The NRA’s team of highly regarded civil rights attorneys and scholars has the resources, skill, and expertise to maximize the potential for victory.

Legal News Privacy

…but anti-gun lawyers do!

Earlier this year, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence tried to make the claim that “gun violence” in California has dropped 56% since 1993. The well funded group of Bay Area lawyers go on to claim that California’s gun control laws deserve the credit. (Shocking, no?) However, reality and their claims are two entirely different things.

California civil right attorney Chuck Michel has dissected the group’s report to find out what the numbers really say. (And by “dissected”, I mean “tossed the report into a woodchipper”.)

Gun deaths have dropped by 31% nationally, while California’s gun death rate dropped by 52%. That’s good news for Californians. But suicides constitute 61% of all those gun deaths. Since 1993 California’s suicide rate has fallen four times faster than the national rate, plummeting by 47%, while the United States suicide average dropped only 11%. No gun control law prevents suicides. Suicidal people typically use their own legally purchased handguns, so California’s “assault weapon” bans, extra capacity magazines bans, background checks, and all the rest had nothing to do with the overall reduction in suicides. The reduction in suicides, not gun control laws, accounts for nearly all of California’s better than national average reduction in overall gun deaths.

These slick, SanFran lawyers have used a trick that the anti-gun lobby has been using for years: Conflate gun suicides with all other gun homicides. They’re hoping that you aren’t paying close attention. Those of you who are paying attention no doubt noticed the way I worded that first sentence. You know that there are three different categories of gun deaths that are included in that phrasing: Suicides, illegal homicides, and legal homicides.

Of those three types of gun related deaths, gun control laws cannot really affect the  first type. As Chuck Michel points out, suicides by gun rarely involve the anti-gun lobby’s favorite bugaboos, “assault” weapons or “high capacity” magazines. And as many economists have pointed out, the overall suicide rate isn’t affected by gun laws either. Those intent upon self-destruction will find other means to do so if a gun isn’t available. As for the third type of gun death, while much smaller than the other two, it is one that no one in their right mind (i.e. no one who isn’t an anti-gun extremist) would want to see gun laws affecting. Of course, none of us wants to see situations where the “good guy with a gun” is forced to shoot the “bad guy with a gun”. But what we really don’t want to see is law abiding citizens or the police disarmed so that violent criminals can safely have their way.

So that leaves us with the second category, illegal homicides. Now the proper question to ask becomes: Did California’s gun control laws affect illegal homicides. As Chuck Michel points out, the answer is “no”. So what did?

Criminologists have long noted that most violence occurs at the hands of repeat offenders, and occurs disproportionately among inner city gangs (recently Yale sociologists concluded that 40% of inner city homicides are caused by four percent of the population). In 1994, California passed its first “three strikes” law specifically designed to address repeat violent offenders. The public was fed-up with escalating crime, and 72 percent of California voters responded by enacting Proposition 184. Two years later voters targeted criminals misusing guns with the 10-20-Life law, putting thugs in jail for long stretches, some lasting forever.

By targeting these repeat offenders who use guns to commit rapes, robberies and murders, California effectively reduced the violence on our streets, and saved many lives. These “criminal control” laws are behind California’s successful fight against gun violence. “Gun control” laws had nothing to do with it.

So how can you tell when an anti-gun lawyer is lying? When his lips are moving, there are numbers are coming out.


Civil rights attorney Chuck Michel looks at what happens when marketeers stop selling toothpaste and start selling gun control.

Marketing experts preach that redefining a market is the best way to win it over.

This is why gun control politicos are now making an effort to change their messages, targets and tactics.

Over the last twenty years or so, gun control has lost. They lost the constitutional argument. They lost the criminological debate. They lost the support of the general public. My hope was that they would continue doing exactly what they have been doing, because they would continue their losing streak and might eventually become a historical footnote.

But they are getting shrewder, as evidenced by a new publicationPreventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging, (herein “the book”).  It’s a 70+ page book that a marketing pal of mine reviewed and called “a classic market redefinition and repositioning strategy.”

The book is a field guide for gun control activists, and is intended to coach them on how to change the political tide by redefining the terms of the debate. I assume some gun control money – namely from the Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama’s old haunt and a frequent advocate in the gun-control debate – was scrapped together and invested in having Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research work on the book. Indeed the name “Joyce Foundation” litters the GQRR web site and Joyce reciprocates. Some of the suspect cash was also likely tossed to KNP Communications, a K Street communications company that divines how best to pitch political concepts. They were also involved in the book.

In other words, the book is propaganda by professional spin masters designed to charge their public message, manipulate public opinion, and reverse the gun control movement’s failures.

Click here for more



California: NRA News Video Reveals True Nature of Cal-DOJ’s Firearm Confiscation Program

Posted on July 29, 2013

You Don’t Want to Miss This!

As part of their efforts to justify increased firearm purchase fees and universal gun registration nationwide, California politicians are enhancing a program that identifies people who are prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition, ammunition components, clips, magazines, and speed loaders, and sending out teams of police to confiscate them.  And with a new funding source from fees forced onto law-abiding gun purchasers, this program will be getting more aggressive.  If you are unsure of your status to possess firearms, police may be knocking on your door!

“California is the first and only state in the nation to build an automated system for tracking handgun and assault weapon owners who pose a threat to public safety,” said a state senator from California.  “Taking guns away from dangerous, violent individuals who are prohibited by law from owning them is smart and efficient law enforcement,” said Attorney General Harris.

They call it the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS).  Sounds great doesn’t it?  Too bad the “system” doesn’t work that way.

As demonstrated in a video which NRA News recently released, featuring accounts from innocent victims of the APPS program, the informed critical opinions a former DOJ agent who actually took part in APPS sweeps, and  firearm civil rights attorney, C.D. Michel, the APPS program is at best ineffective at getting guns from violent criminals, and at worst a campaign of civil rights violations mislabeled as crime fighting.

While the idea behind APPS program is good in theory – seeking to disarm the truly dangerous elements of society – that is not what the APPS program is actually doing.  Using recent tragedies to make APPS sound like something it is not, anti-gun politicians have mischaracterized what APPS does, and stolen millions of dollars from firearm purchasers (via the fees they are required to pay) to expand the APPS program.

In fact, as the NRA’s important video shows, APPS suspects are overwhelmingly non-violent, good people who were unwittingly prohibited from firearm possession and typically don’t even know their prohibited status or that they may be violating the law.  They are hardly the dangerous criminals or scofflaws politicians make them out to be.

There are ways to protect yourself and your fellow gun owners!  First, watch the video. Second, the firearm rights attorneys at Michel & Associates have published a legal memorandum providing a breakdown of the APPS program and tips on how to handle any issues that may arise from it.  Confirm your status and learn your rights!


From Chuck Michel at CalGunLaws.com…

California Attorney General to Feds: No Handguns For You

Apparently, Attorney General (AG) Kamala Harris has changed California State Department of Justice policy and is now limiting federal law enforcement agents’ ability to acquire handguns. The AG says the feds can only buy firearms listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (like the rest of us).

Understandably, federal law enforcement officers aren’t happy about it. Welcome feds, to the California disarmament festival.

Read more.



California Lawyer, Chuck Michel, Honored with NRA Defender of Justice Award

Posted on May 16, 2013
The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) honored California attorney C.D. “Chuck” Michel with the 2013 NRA Defender of Justice Award.  This award recognizes outstanding efforts by attorneys who defend the right to keep and bear arms, and particularly recognizes attorneys who make a significant contribution to those efforts pro bono.  Chuck received the prestigious award at the NRA’s 2013 annual meetings in Houston, Texas.  It recognizes him for his extensive work, and particularly pro bono work, defending the right to keep and bear arms.

“For years, Chuck Michel has played a critical role in defending the rights of California gun owners and hunters,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA-ILA.  “Whether it’s bringing major Second Amendment litigation in federal court, defending individual gun owners caught up in California’s maze of laws and regulations, or preserving hunters’ rights against animal extremists, Californians owe a debt of gratitude for his efforts.”

Chuck is the Senior Counsel at Michel & Associates.  His practice focuses on civil litigation, including firearms law, business litigation, labor and employment law disputes, civil rights advocacy, land use and environmental law.  He has over twenty years of experience representing the NRA and California Rifle & Pistol Association(CRPA), as well as firearm manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and gun owners.

Over the last twenty years, Chuck has generously contributed thousands of hours of his time and the time of the team of civil rights lawyers employed at his law firm, worth millions of dollars, to Second Amendment causes and on behalf of gun owners.

Chuck is also the author of California Gun Laws: A Guide to State and Federal Firearm Regulations, and is a frequent lecturer to community groups and organizations on Second Amendment issues.  He has represented many clients in high-profile cases that garnered significant state and national media attention.  He has appeared as a spokesperson for the NRA, CRPA and other associations, and for individual clients on dozens of television and radio interviews and in thousands of newspaper articles.  He has been profiled in recognition of his work in multiple periodicals, and has published several articles and editorials in the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Daily Journal and several other state and national newspapers.  Chuck has also taught law as an Adjunct Professor atChapman University School of Law in Orange, California, where he teaches classes in Firearms Law and Law Practice Management.

The NRA is proud to have Michel & Associates working on behalf of our right to keep and bear arms.

Some law firms, particularly in Los Angeles and San Francisco, support anti-gun-owner efforts to undermine your right to keep and bear arms by providing pro bono legal services to the gun ban lobby and to politicians who would deprive you of our Second Amendment rights.  The anti-Second Amendment efforts by these law firms are effectively subsidized through the legal fees paid by their business clients.  Shop for your legal service provider carefully so you don’t inadvertently subsidize the gun ban lobby!

Past Defender of Justice Award recipients:

2007 – Mike Minton (St. Louis)

2008 – Kenn Hanson (Louisville)

2009 – Dave Kopel (Phoenix)

2010 – Lonnie Anderson (Charlotte)

2011 – Jonathan Goldstein (Pittsburgh)

2012 – (Not Presented) (St. Louis)

2013 – Chuck Michel (Houston)


California civil rights attorney Chuck Michel joined NRA News’ Cam Edwards to talk about the new sheriff of Sacramento County and how he’s liberalized CCW there. Residents of that county are no longer being told that “self-defense” is not a valid reason for a carry permit…


News Self-defense

California civil rights attorney Chuck Michel talks to NRA News’ Cam Edwards about the NRA/CRPA lawsuit filed against the LAPD…


Legal News Self-defense