@sk33tr go back through this thread and look at my posts. A quick synopsis is this, CA came up with an "assault weapons" bans several years ago and then proceeded to list any weapon capable of accepting a detachable magazine, including handguns. Anything over a 10 round magazine is illegal. It is really pathetic out there!!
What I'm trying to figure out about that latest article is what is the point? Literally the only "new" evidence is the broken cell phones. My biggest issue with this whole thing is the video. Supposedly the DA is claiming he needs "more time" to review the video yet was told about its existence long ago. Not only that, she has attempted to recant her story several different times (especially after the video leaked on social media).
I think the throwing her dog across the room may be new as well. To your point though, outside of the phone and dog, this has all been hashed out in public.
It's also hearsay with no way of proving he actually did that. At least with the phones you can actually show a broken phone. If she is admitted to lying about beating her, is she lying about kicking/throwing/whatever the dog? This whole thing is a mess.


