1., DECLARATION OF IGNATIUS CIDNN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTIO:X FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARy ADJUDICATION ON PLAINTIFFS' AMEi'U)ED COMPLAINT 1 -BILL LOCKYER Attorney General. of the State of California 2 STACYBO"U'LWAREEURJE Senior .L\.ssistant Attorney General 3 Ct-m..rSTOPHER E. KRUEGER Supervising Deputy Attorney General 4 DOUGLAS 1. WOODS, State Bw.' Ko. 161531 Deputy Attorney General 5 13001 Street, Sl.1ite 125 P.O. Box 944255 6 Sacramento, CA 94244-2.550 Telephone: (916) 324-4663 7 Fax: (916) 324-5567 E-mail: [email protected] 8 , Attorneys for Defendall.ts ATTORNEY GENERAL 9 BILL LOCKYER., the STATE OF CALIFORl."'\fIA, and CALlFO,Rt\1JA DEPARTM:ENT OF JUSTICE 10 11 STJPERIOR COl;"'R T OF C.ALIFORNIA 12 COlJNTY OF FRESKO 13 14 EDWARD W. HUNT, in his official capacity-as CaseKo.OICECG03182 IS District Attorney of Fres.o.o County, and in his personal capacity as a citizen and taxpayer, et ai, DECLARATION OF IG)lATrr:;S 1"6 CHlNN IN SUPPORT OF DEFE:r...1>ANrS~ MOTIOJX FOR 17 SID1MARY JUDGMENT OR, Plaintiffs, ALTERNATfVELY~FOR 18 I SUMMARY ADJUDrCATION ON PLAL"'ITIFFS~ AMENDED 19 Y. CO).fpLAINT 20 Date: February 1, 2007 Time: 3:30 p.m. 2 j STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et aL, Dept: 72 22 Defendants. Before the Honorable Alan Simpson 23 24: 1, Ign.atius Chlrln) declare: 25 1. I am. a Special Agent Supervisor employed by tbe California. Department of Justice 2~ ("DOJ")~ and have been so employed f<[t the past 15 years. 111C matters set forth in this , - 27 , declaration are true of my own knowledge~ and if called as a wimess, I coulp. and would tcst1-fy 28 I competently thereto. 1 Deal. of Ignatius Chinn in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 01' Summary Adjudic.al:ion 1 i 2. Currcnt1y~ I am assigned to the DOJ Fireanus Division., where I l1ave been assigned for 2 the past·six years. Prior to my employment with DOJ. I was a police officer for the City of 3 Oak1and~ California for 11 years. In 1982, I. was promoted to Sergeant of Police and was 4 assigned for nine <Uld one-half years to the Criminal Investigation Division (lielD"). In the ern, 5 I was assigned to the Burglary Section~ the Undercover Theft Recovery Unit~ the Narcotics o Section, the Auto Theft Section~ the RobbeJ.',Y Section, and the Gang Unit. During my career, I 7 have vvnttell, serve~ and assisted in the preparation and execution of hundreds of search 8 warrants for narcotics and/or dangerous dnLgs) stolen property material evidence in criminal 9 cascs~ 3.t1d machine gun and firea.nns violations. Ii) 3. Over the past 30 years, I have been lllvolved in at least 200 firearms investigations 11 involving mega! transactions~ illegal machine gun conversions. and assault weapons sales and 12 possession violations. From 1974 through 1987~ Thad au off.:duty job as a parHUne gLllHepair 13 analyst at an Oakland gun store. During my employment at this store~ I leamt:d fireanns 14 identificaHon nomenclature and repair. I attended numerous nreanns classes givcn by munerous 15 gun. manufacturers, such as Glock, Colt, and Smith and vy~esson. I also later attended l:;tw 16 enforcement fireanns classes concerning firearms violati·ons~ given by the United States .A.rmy, 17 the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Wld F~, 18 which is noW the Bureau of .A1cohol~ Tobacco, Firear.rns and Explosives C'ATF") Investigations 19 in my present position have primarily Involved individuals who possess, buy, and sell :flrea.nns 20 illegally, either because the transactions violate ·state or federa11aw or the flrearms themselves are 21 illegal. I am fiui:ill..iarwith methods used by people to alter firearms l'ecords and illegally transfer 22 .firearms. AIso~ I am all expert:in identification of assault weapons and other dangerous and 23 deadly weapons. I have been qualified as an expert in rirearms identification and nomenclatu.Te 24 : before the Marin COllllty Grand Jury, the United States Federal Grand Jury (San Fnmcisco), the 2S United States District Court, Eastern District of California,. and the Superior Court: in the 26 following counties: Alameda., Amador, Ca1averas, EI Dorado, Lake, Los Angeles) Monterey, 27 Nevada, Kings., Fresno) Sacramento, San Francisco~ Orange. San Mateo, and Tulare. 28 4. T am familiar with this lawsuit and with the Assault Weapons Control Act (the "Act") 2 DecL ofIgnatius Chinn in Support of Defendm1:S I Motion for SUm.n:HII)' JudgmentoI Summ.:,u;1 Adjudication I desCl1bed in the lawsuit. In particular. I am familiar with the amendments to the Act estabJisbed 2. .' by Senate Bil123~ Chapter 129 of the Statutes of 1999 ("SB 23"). Among other things. SB 23 3 created Penal Code section 12276.1, which for the first time defined. assault weapons by 4 referert.ce to objective design ch.aracter.istics, in addition to the existing list of assault weapons 5 : already identified by manufactu:rer' md model. As Special Agent Superv:isor. and an assault 6' weapons expert in the Fireanns Division, I was directly involved in the initial drafting and 7 su.bsequent revisions of the assault weapoll characteristic definitiorl in the 'rDepruiment of tt S Justice Reg1J1ations foi; Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines" (the "Rcgulations ). 9 , whi.ch are set forth in Chapter 12.8 of Title 11 of the CaIifomia COde of Regulations (beginning 10 with sectio1l978.10). , 11 Definition of f!FJash SuppressDrTl "12 5. Under Penal Co·de section 12276.1(a)(1)(E)~ the Legislature listed "flash suppressor" as 13 one of the fireann features that can dctennine whether a:fi.rearm is an assault weapon. III section 14 978.20(b) of the Regulations, DOJ defuled "flash sup?ressor" as meaning "any device designed._ is intended, or that functi0ns to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash iTom the shooter's field 16 ofvisjon.11 In the first, secon~ and sixth causes of action in this lawsuit, plaintiffs challenge: this 17 definition of r'flash suppressor." They claim it unlawfully alters and expands the well~estab1ishcd t 18 meaning ofllie term "flash suppressor • and, in doing so, un1~w.fu1ly exprulds the meaning of 19 Penal Code section 12276.1(a)(1)(E). Plaintiffs also claim that the definition ls fatally vague 20 :. because h does not provide specific measurement standards for determining whether particular 21 features qualify as flash suppressors. FitlaUy, plaintiffs also claim that-DOJ has issued nuings 22 . and taken actions that are inconsistent "With the definition set forth in section 978.20(b). 23 6. In regard to measurement standards, DOr's position is that the absence of a 24 ,measurement provision in the Statute and regulation does not render the "flash suppressor" 2S defInition invalid. The absence of specific measurement standards demonstrates the legislative 26 intent to include devices thai reduce or redirect any amount offlash~ and nO administrative 27 regulation may alter a. statute or enlarge or impair its scope. DOJ would thus have exceeded its 28 authQrity ifit had established a standard that permitted some percentage or amount offlash " Ii' Decl. of Ignatius Chinn in Support of Defendmts , MOti:n for Swntl1.al)' Judgment or Summa.-y Adjudication 1 suppression. 2 7. Accordingly, DOJ detennlnGS whether a particular feature or device is a -flash 3 5U.ppres~or as defined in section 978.20(0) by inspecting the device, revi~ material regarding 4 the device provided by the ma:n.ufacturer or othenyise, andlor consulting with ATF'. In particular. S DOJ determines whether a particular device is a flash suppressor under the regulatory definition 6 by following a step-by-step analysis. In nearly all instances to date, DO] has been abLe to 7 determine that the device in qU,estion is a flash suppressor in the initial stage of the analysis, 8 without needing to proceed further in the determjn.ation process. 9 8. The first step is detennination of whether the device ill question is desl@ed or 10 intended to percepL"ibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash fronl the shooter's field of vision. The 11 assigned FiremnlS Division persomlel examine the device and review material produced by the 12 rrumufacturcroftbe device to see what. the manufacturer has said publicly about i~s designed or 13 intended uses for the device. Manufacturer materials reviewed can include brochures and 14 . packaging provided witb the device, advertisi.ng materials, web sites, and point-of~sale or other 15 marketing materials. If appropriate, Firea.mJ.s Division personnel directly contact the 16 m..mufacturer to determine its intended purpose for the device. Industry pttbJications are also 17 reviewed to obtain.infonnation as to the designed or intended uses for the device. If it is 18 deteonined that the device in question was designed or intended to perceptibly reduce or redirect 19 muzzle flash from the shooter's field ofvislon~ then the device is determined to be a flash , 20! suppressor~ and the inquiry is at an end. 21 9. If, however, it is detennilled that the devic.e ill question was not designed or intended to 22 perceptibly reduce or redirect muz~le flash from the shooter's field of vision, then the analysis 23" proceeds to a detcnnination of whether the device nonetheless fonctions to perceptibly reduce or 24 redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field ofvisiol1. Depending on the device, inspection of 25 the device may establish that it does not function to perceptibly reduce orredirect muzzle flash 26 from the shooter~s field of vision.