PDA

View Full Version : CGF Lawsuit: OOIDA v. Lindley - AB-962 Unconstitutional


Pages : [1] 2

hoffmang
07-28-2010, 4:30 PM
Contacts: For OOIDA:
Norita Taylor, norita_taylor@ooida.com
Headquarters: (800) 444-5791
For The Calguns Foundation & Plaintiffs:
Jason Davis, Jason@calgunlawyers.com
Office: (949) 310-0817

Truckers and gun owner groups file lawsuit against California to void handgun ammunition shipping ban


AB-962 Pre-empted By Federal Laws That Regulate Interstate Shipping

For Immediate Release: 7/28/2010

Redwood City, CA - The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA (http://www.ooida.com/)) has joined with the Calguns Foundation (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/), the National Rifle Association, the Folsom Shooting Club (http://www.sacvalley.org/) and two individual truckers to challenge California’s soon to be implemented ban on the interstate shipment of handgun ammunition to California.

Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 962 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20091011_chaptered.html) into law. Starting in February 2011, the law will criminalize the delivery and transfer of handgun ammunition not done in face-to-face transactions. The law requires shipping companies to implement procedures to determine whether the recipient of a package containing handgun ammunition is covered by one of the exceptions in the law before delivering handgun ammunition in California. This places a big burden on the shippers, and will make shipping ammunition to California much more difficult and likely more expensive.

The new lawsuit, filed today in Sacramento’s Eastern District Federal Court, alleges that these provisions of the law violate the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which prohibits states and local municipalities from interfering with carriers’ rates, routes, or services.

“This isn’t about firearms or ammunition. Congress made an important decision to keep motor carriers free from a patchwork of burdensome regulation as we move America’s goods to market” said Jim Johnston, OOIDA President. “We cannot allow California to subject our members to criminal liability where the state has no right to meddle.”

California depends on the efficient movement of goods by carrier into California. “California legislators have become accustomed to trampling the rights of California’s gun community. However, this time they’ve taken that recklessness into a field that will hurt every Californian. AB-962 will slow down everyone who orders goods online or buys goods at a retail store,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation.

In February 2008, a unanimous United States Supreme Court struck down Maine’s directly analogous law regarding the delivery of cigarettes to Maine in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport. “It does not matter what the State’s goal is or how honorable they believe their cause is,” stated lead attorney, Jason Davis of Davis & Associates. “Rowe made it clear that a state cannot interfere with a carrier’s rates, routes, or services. AB962 does just that.”

“At Sacramento Valley Shooting Center, we currently provide handgun ammunition sales to the public,” said Jim Bass, President of Folsom Shooting Club. “Should the shipping restrictions in AB-962 take effect, we have no way to prove to shippers that we are a handgun ammunition vendor under the law.”

This case follows a Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenge entitled State Ammunition v. Lindley, and a California State Court Challenge to the vagueness and other requirements of AB-962 brought by the NRA-CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project.

The delivery prohibitions of AB-962 take effect in February 2011; Plaintiffs in this case will be moving quickly to obtain an injunction before the shipping portions of the law takes effect.

The case is filed as OOIDA et. al v. Lindley, U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. C.A. 2:10-at-01095. A copy of the complaint is available from http://bit.ly/OOIDA-CGF-NRA .

---

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is the largest national trade association representing the interests of small-business trucking professionals and professional truck drivers. The Association currently has more than 154,000 members nationwide. OOIDA was established in 1973 and is headquartered in the greater Kansas City, Mo., area.

The Calguns Foundation (http://calgunsfoundation.org) is a non-profit legal defense fund for California gun owners. The Calguns Foundation works to educate government and the public and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own and lawfully use firearms in California.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

The Folsom Shooting Club Inc. was incorporated in 1951 and currently operates Sacramento Valley Shooting Center at Sloughhouse CA. Sacramento Valley Shooting center provides ranges for private, government and public use with rifles, handguns and shotguns. FSC and its 1500 members constantly work with law enforcement, the military, youth and wildlife groups and members of the public to promote safe and proper handling of firearms for sporting, recreational and personal use.

taperxz
07-28-2010, 4:36 PM
Glad to know my donations are going to a great cause! Thank you

choprzrul
07-28-2010, 4:39 PM
Redwood City, CA - The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA (http://www.ooida.com/)) has joined with the Calguns Foundation (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/), the National Rifle Association, the Folsom Shooting Club (http://www.sacvalley.org/) and two individual truckers to challenge California’s soon to be implemented ban on the interstate shipment of handgun ammunition to California.

Again, the Right People are looking out for the rest of us. Thank you for all you do, I am humbled by your dedication.

.

bwiese
07-28-2010, 4:40 PM
Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.

Super Spy
07-28-2010, 4:40 PM
Keep up the good work!

stag1500
07-28-2010, 4:40 PM
Is there a chance this case will be completely resolved before February, 2011 or are we hoping a federal judge will block AB 962 from going into effect before then?

taperxz
07-28-2010, 4:41 PM
Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.

I think this state should get used to it. Our legislators may want to visit San Quentin so they can get some practice.

Steyrlp10
07-28-2010, 4:43 PM
Thank you, CGF :)

hoffmang
07-28-2010, 4:44 PM
Is there a chance this case will be completely resolved before February, 2011 or are we hoping a federal judge will block AB 962 from going into effect before then?

As the last sentence in the release says, we'll be going for an injunction before the law takes effect.

-Gene

wildhawker
07-28-2010, 4:45 PM
Glad to know my donations are going to a great cause! Thank you

We work very hard at turning your tax-deductible donations into real results. Freedom isn't free (http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate), and thank you all who recognize it and contribute.

berto
07-28-2010, 4:47 PM
Beautiful.

freonr22
07-28-2010, 4:48 PM
This whole legal gangbang that CGF is giving to The Insane Ones is giving me a raging brainer ?. From pullnshoot25

wash
07-28-2010, 4:48 PM
Great news!

KaTooM
07-28-2010, 4:48 PM
Sound like you guys are off to a good start!!

:thumbsup:

383green
07-28-2010, 4:48 PM
Excellent news! :thumbsup:

I believe there's a word missing in the title of the release (or at least this cut-n-paste of it):

Truckers and gun owner groups file lawsuit against California to void handgun ammunition shipping ban

I particularly like how you point out that this law affects everybody, not just ammunition purchasers and vendors.


Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.

Those who don't like the prurient innuendo may prefer an alternate mental image: AB962 wears a "PC LOAD LETTER" T-shirt while being stomped to bits by three disgruntled office workers. :p

stag1500
07-28-2010, 4:48 PM
As the last sentence in the release says, we'll be going for an injunction before the law takes effect.

-Gene

Oops. Missed that the first time.

Window_Seat
07-28-2010, 4:49 PM
Thanks to Jason Davis, Calguns Foundation & Gene for all their efforts.

I'll be adding this complaint to my signature line shortly now.:thumbsup:

Erik.

choprzrul
07-28-2010, 4:50 PM
1. August
2. September
3. October
4. November
5. December
6. January

Now the end of July and it takes effect in Feb. Is there a significance to waiting for almost exactly 6 months before to file the suit? I've been wondering why something wasn't filed sooner. Timing? Right plaintiff? Full moon?

Just curious.

wash
07-28-2010, 4:53 PM
It's my understanding that a plaintiff backed out which delayed the case.

But it's on now.

boxbro
07-28-2010, 4:54 PM
Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.

:eek: :popcorn:

Muzz
07-28-2010, 4:54 PM
May we kill this thing any way we can. Except with old age.

kf6tac
07-28-2010, 4:55 PM
Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.

Exactly my thoughts when I saw the thread title.

Put another way, this is one horse I'll be happy to beat to death.

Gray Peterson
07-28-2010, 4:55 PM
Probably right plaintiffs. Remember that Jason Davis is the lawyer for all of the plaintiffs except for Chuck Michel who is representing the NRA. It takes a special kind of gumption, "fire in the belly", if you will, to be a good plaintiff for something you believe in.

CMonfort
07-28-2010, 4:55 PM
There were multiple, significant reasons why this suit and Parker were filed when they were. Those reasons will become evident eventually.

1. August
2. September
3. October
4. November
5. December
6. January

Now the end of July and it takes effect in Feb. Is there a significance to waiting for almost exactly 6 months before to file the suit? I've been wondering why something wasn't filed sooner. Timing? Right plaintiff? Full moon?

Just curious.

Hopi
07-28-2010, 4:57 PM
Never cease to amaze.

choprzrul
07-28-2010, 4:59 PM
There were multiple, significant reasons why this suit and Parker were filed when they were. Those reasons will become evident eventually.

Figured as much, but had to ask:43:

.

CalNRA
07-28-2010, 4:59 PM
Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.

we on Calguns are pretty desensitized to...such references.

Window_Seat
07-28-2010, 5:06 PM
Can this case be added to the CGF Wiki?

Erik.

Table Rock Arms
07-28-2010, 5:07 PM
I am glad they are addressing the fact that nobody has any idea what a handgun ammunition vendor is. Hard to imagine they could put the law into effect with no definition.

Window_Seat
07-28-2010, 5:09 PM
Probably right plaintiffs. Remember that Jason Davis is the lawyer for all of the plaintiffs except for Chuck Michel who is representing the NRA. It takes a special kind of gumption, "fire in the belly", if you will, to be a good plaintiff for something you believe in.

You got that right!:D:D

Erik.

HowardW56
07-28-2010, 5:11 PM
Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.


Bill, you can sell the video on the internet....

You just need a new .XXX domain....

VAReact
07-28-2010, 5:12 PM
Donating to CGF is the BEST money I've EVER spent!!! YEE-HAH!! Might be time to UP my monthly contributions!

:party:

Monte
07-28-2010, 5:12 PM
Fantastic news, guys. Thanks, as always, to the usual suspects. :thumbsup:

greasemonkey
07-28-2010, 5:15 PM
Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.
:D:43:

YKUOB8MN4Kc

CalNRA
07-28-2010, 5:16 PM
oh yeah, starting the checks right now....

Maltese Falcon
07-28-2010, 5:16 PM
So this is a two pronged attack with the CRPA / NRA suit the other prong?

.

craneman
07-28-2010, 5:19 PM
Thanks fella's, for all you so for us. I will try to donate more when some funds become available. These type of actions give me that warm fuzzy feeling inside. Go get em!!

kf6tac
07-28-2010, 5:21 PM
So this is a two pronged attack with the CRPA / NRA suit the other prong?

.

Three prongs if you count the lawsuit filed by State Ammunition.

Woodymyster
07-28-2010, 5:27 PM
Would this actually take down the entire law or would certain parts be addressed with an injunction before it goes into effect? I mean if the courts agree that it is unconstitutional, does the entire law get struck down or just the provision about ftf ammo sells?

Hogxtz
07-28-2010, 5:29 PM
Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.

Ok, I'll be the first low classed guy that says, " I actually like that reference, a lot, its hilarious.

wash
07-28-2010, 5:30 PM
Would this actually take down the entire law or would certain parts be addressed with an injunction before it goes into effect? I mean if the courts agree that it is unconstitutional, does the entire law get struck down or just the provision about ftf ammo sells?
If the injunction allows us to mail order ammo, having to show ID and give a thumb print when you buy ammo will only be hurting CA retailers.

Which leads me to think that the FFL's who supported AB962 to get a local ammo monopoly were really really dumb.

hoffmang
07-28-2010, 5:33 PM
Would this actually take down the entire law or would certain parts be addressed with an injunction before it goes into effect? I mean if the courts agree that it is unconstitutional, does the entire law get struck down or just the provision about ftf ammo sells?
There was no "savings clause" in AB-962 and a lot of reasons why success in this suit should take the whole law down.

Also, please remember that freedom isn't free. Donate (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate) to the Calguns Foundation today.

-Gene

wildhawker
07-28-2010, 5:35 PM
If the injunction allows us to mail order ammo, having to show ID and give a thumb print when you buy ammo will only be hurting CA retailers.

Which leads me to think that the FFL's who supported AB962 to get a local ammo monopoly were really really dumb.

While in this specific case the entire law would fall, your second statement is true - dumb, and possibly mislead.

Always remember that the interests of firearm owners/civil rights and the firearm industry sometimes diverge.

taperxz
07-28-2010, 5:37 PM
bad question

Maltese Falcon
07-28-2010, 5:37 PM
Three prongs if you count the lawsuit filed by State Ammunition.

Thanks...I wasn't aware of that. I went back to the CRPA / NRA post and saw it there. Yahoo! Divide their forces to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to the the hear lamentations of their women.

.

dantodd
07-28-2010, 5:38 PM
Out of curiosity, if an injunction is granted how will the out of state internet vendors become aware of the injunction? Its my understanding they are all waiting for the feb 2011 date.

I'm sure that a letter can be forwarded to the largest retailers and you can certainly provide a copy of the injunction to smaller vendors with whom you'd like to do business.

CalNRA
07-28-2010, 6:10 PM
Which leads me to think that the FFL's who supported AB962 to get a local ammo monopoly were really really dumb.

who were these FFLs?

7x57
07-28-2010, 6:16 PM
I'm against uncsontitutional laws just on principle, but I was wondering if the law was unconstitutional as well. :D

7x57

radioburning
07-28-2010, 6:25 PM
CGF=kicking @$$ and taking names!

gobler
07-28-2010, 6:31 PM
Thanks Gene, CGF and the NRA are worthy of support.
I just donated my last $50 I had this month...
conformation # 3DM7525374369420H

Keep up the kick a** work!! :clap::rockon::clap:


Jeff

yakmon
07-28-2010, 6:32 PM
W(here)TF is the CGF steamroller pic?

wildhawker
07-28-2010, 6:36 PM
This one? ;) :43:

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g178/wildhawker/CGFRoller-1.jpg

yakmon
07-28-2010, 6:36 PM
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7167/steamroller.jpg

craneman
07-28-2010, 6:37 PM
You would think that the ammo manufacturers would be inclined to kick in a few bucks, too. After all, it is definately in thier interest to future sales in a HUGE market. The way I read it, there is 1 plantiff. What about some financial backing?

jpr9954
07-28-2010, 6:41 PM
We work very hard at turning your tax-deductible donations into real results. Freedom isn't free (http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate), and thank you all who recognize it and contribute.

I just sent a donation. I may not live in California but I really believe we are all in this together.

JasonDavis
07-28-2010, 6:42 PM
http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_Reports/2010/July/072810-OOIDA-sues-CA.htm

wildhawker
07-28-2010, 6:46 PM
I just sent a donation. I may not live in California but I really believe we are all in this together.

Thank you *very much* - we are all in this together (http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=329).

It's time that gun owners in all 50 states rally around our common cause. Folks such as yourself are making that happen.

greasemonkey
07-28-2010, 6:47 PM
I just sent a donation. I may not live in California but I really believe we are all in this together.

That's for sure, DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago among many other suits attest to that! Cases here will set precedent so those of you out of California won't have to deal with a lot of this crap.:D

2009_gunner
07-28-2010, 6:47 PM
Hoping Calguns sends out an email with a donation link at the bottom.

It makes for a nice email to forward to others :)

woodey
07-28-2010, 6:50 PM
Thanks for fighting the fight

jpr9954
07-28-2010, 6:57 PM
That's for sure, DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago among many other suits attest to that! Cases here will set precedent so those of you out of California won't have to deal with a lot of this crap.:D

That was my thinking.

The first post-McDonald suit, Bateman v Perdue was filed in North Carolina by our version of CalGuns - Grass Roots North Carolina.

By my count, there are now seven post-McDonald lawsuits filed in various US District Courts. There are two in Illinois, two in California, and one each in NC, New York, and Nevada.

cmaher55
07-28-2010, 7:00 PM
Great...! Glad to see my shooting club is a member of this suit...!

wildhawker
07-28-2010, 7:05 PM
Bateman v Perdue is another Gura joint venture with GRNC, SAF and the individual plaintiffs. Obviously, we work (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/dc-roster/Hanson-v-DC-Complaint-2009-03-09.pdf) pretty (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pena/Pena-v-Cid-complaint.pdf) closely (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf) with those folks. ;)

That was my thinking.

The first post-McDonald suit, Bateman v Perdue was filed in North Carolina by our version of CalGuns - Grass Roots North Carolina.

By my count, there are now seven post-McDonald lawsuits filed in various US District Courts. There are two in Illinois, two in California, and one each in NC, New York, and Nevada.

BigDogatPlay
07-28-2010, 7:05 PM
Three prongs if you count the lawsuit filed by State Ammunition.

Hence Bill's reference, I suspect, to a three way. :D

Well played, as usual, by The Right People. All the more is the pity that Assemblyman DeLeon can't be charged back by the state, on behalf of the taxpayers, for what his petty, self centered and poorly thought out feel good legislation is going to cost the state to try and defend.

If legislators took it personally in the wallet every time one of their wrong headed ideas went kerfuffle the regulatory landscape would be far more cogent and far less far reaching.

N6ATF
07-28-2010, 7:09 PM
Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.

So who gets the biggest shot of money? Or is it a 3-way even split?

Homebrew2
07-28-2010, 7:13 PM
... Also, please remember that freedom isn't free. ... Donate to the Calguns Foundation today.... -Gene

$100 9E4238*****91743C :D

Robidouxs
07-28-2010, 7:13 PM
When can I start to ready my seat, a safe distance away, to prepare for the firework show which shall occur in Oakland when the city is sued?

Crom
07-28-2010, 7:16 PM
Can this case be added to the CGF Wiki?

Erik.

It is done. OOIDA v. Lindley (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/OOIDA_v._Lindley)

I am very grateful for this positive news. I hope to send more cash each month. Thanks to everyone involved.

D-Man
07-28-2010, 7:41 PM
FTW! Those swine really are doing acrobatics outside my window now as they fly in the sky!

blackberg
07-28-2010, 7:50 PM
Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.

Awesome!

-bb

a1c
07-28-2010, 7:54 PM
I can't give much lately, but I will make another modest donation to CGF to support the cause. I'm not under any illusions that my hopefully soon-to-arrive C&R license will allow me to bypass this easily with a lot of retailers who'll otherwise probably will cut us off anyway. Even if it does, it's not right for the other gun owners out there. Let's fight this.

yakmon
07-28-2010, 8:15 PM
My Dillon 650 allows my to sidestep deLeon's folly

orangeusa
07-28-2010, 8:30 PM
I (and many others) handed out petitions to try to stop AB962 and call Ahhnold. Too little, too late. Was really disheartened it was signed.

This is shaping up as quite a year... :)

mike_schwartz@mail.com
07-28-2010, 8:53 PM
Could this be a way to attack the CA AWB too?

I remember Ronnie Barrett brought up the commerce angle when it first went through, but nothing seemed to come of it.

Foulball
07-28-2010, 9:33 PM
CGF, CRPA, SAF & NRA, Kicking *** & taking names!!!

Thank you Gene, Davis & Assoc., Michel & Assoc. and all the rest for all you do!!!

Wildhawker, you need to come back down to the OC & meet me at the Auld Irisher for a beer!

:party:

jaymz
07-28-2010, 9:43 PM
Apologies for the crude reference, but this is gonna be a 3-way gangbang.
Sounds fun! Can I watch? :popcorn:

Window_Seat
07-28-2010, 9:55 PM
It is done. OOIDA v. Lindley (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/OOIDA_v._Lindley)

I am very grateful for this positive news. I hope to send more cash each month. Thanks to everyone involved.

Way COOL!! Updating my signature (again)! (ETA: and DONE)

Erik.

chiselchst
07-28-2010, 10:00 PM
CGF, CRPA, SAF & NRA, Kicking *** & taking names!!!

Thank you Gene, Davis & Assoc., Michel & Assoc. and all the rest for all you do!!!

:party:

+1

Great news!

orangeusa
07-28-2010, 10:00 PM
I wonder if we'll ever say - "Remember Window_Seat's sigline before we won all those cases?" :) BTW - I dig your sig.

mossy
07-28-2010, 10:04 PM
nice

GuyW
07-28-2010, 10:09 PM
I just sent a donation. I may not live in California but I really believe we are all in this together.

Thank you. Imagine if the entire country felt that way....

.

trashman
07-28-2010, 10:21 PM
CGF delivers again! Great work gents.

--Neill

Beatone
07-28-2010, 10:22 PM
I like what I'm reading. Now let's get this future law thrown out.

obeygiant
07-28-2010, 10:38 PM
I (and many others) handed out petitions to try to stop AB962 and call Ahhnold. Too little, too late. Was really disheartened it was signed.

This is shaping up as quite a year... :)

When we win I think I will be sending Kevin DeLeon the remainder of the flyers that are in my possession with a thank you card for helping to organize 2A activists in California. :43: That or maybe just a small note saying "How do you like them apples?"

bwiese
07-28-2010, 10:41 PM
Could this be a way to attack the CA AWB too?

I remember Ronnie Barrett brought up the commerce angle when it first went through, but nothing seemed to come of it.

Commerce angles do play in attacks on named AWs.

One can't keep a straight face when a Stag-15 or CMMG can be legally owned but a Colt or Armalite of equivalent configuration can''t.

glockman19
07-28-2010, 10:45 PM
Thank you Cal Guns Foundation

Looks like a real winner, and no brainer, here. Let's hope the very few in office don't squander our hard earned and forefitted tax dollars on frivilous law suits.

Commerce angles do play in attacks on named AWs.

One can't keep a straight face when a Stag-15 or CMMG can be legally owned but a Colt or Armalite of equivalent configuration can''t.

This would also directly impact the Safe Gun Roster too wouldn't it? Many Identical guns are not available because they didn't pay for teh blued and stainless options.

wildhawker
07-28-2010, 10:53 PM
I (and many others) handed out petitions to try to stop AB962 and call Ahhnold. Too little, too late. Was really disheartened it was signed.

This is shaping up as quite a year... :)

We fought together. Remember when I told you that we should be proud of what we accomplished, and not to be discouraged?

This is only the beginning.

It's time to get involved. We're marching, folks.

When we win I think I will be sending Kevin DeLeon the remainder of the flyers that are in my possession with a thank you card for helping to organize 2A activists in California. :43:

:chris: :43:

greasemonkey
07-28-2010, 11:11 PM
When we win I think I will be sending Kevin DeLeon the remainder of the flyers that are in my possession with a thank you card for helping to organize 2A activists in California. :43: That or maybe just a small note saying "How do you like them apples?"

Don't forget to toss some spent handgun brass in the care package, too! You know, like the "spent rounds" he 'found' whilst walking around his constituents' neighborhood that inspired the whole 962 shenanigans.

jdberger
07-28-2010, 11:37 PM
You can count on them bringing out their finest and brightest. Then they will get support from groups and think tanks like Brady and LCAV, all in the name of charity.:rolleyes:

Dear goodness! I sure hope so. After all the "success" they've had lately (they won McDonald, did you hear?) I can only hope that they throw their wieght behind this one.

:43:

Paul S
07-29-2010, 12:09 AM
Marvelous news. Thanks for all you do.

Paul S

CGF Contrib. made last week

Texas Boy
07-29-2010, 12:11 AM
Hence Bill's reference, I suspect, to a three way. :D

Well played, as usual, by The Right People. All the more is the pity that Assemblyman DeLeon can't be charged back by the state, on behalf of the taxpayers, for what his petty, self centered and poorly thought out feel good legislation is going to cost the state to try and defend.

If legislators took it personally in the wallet every time one of their wrong headed ideas went kerfuffle the regulatory landscape would be far more cogent and far less far reaching.

But we can make the cost of the lawsuit (to California) very public during his re-election campaign.

orangeusa
07-29-2010, 12:22 AM
We fought together. Remember when I told you that we should be proud of what we accomplished, and not to be discouraged?

This is only the beginning.

It's time to get involved. We're marching, folks.
:chris: :43:

Yup, I do remember and appreciate your help - but - just shook my world a little bit, which isn't bad. I was new to 2A challenges, naive to the 'way govt works'. And my assistance was not that much... Imagine if we multiplied that by 100!! Let's see - 470k gun sales last year, how many NEW owners? Hard to say, but probably a LOT.

By CG handing out flyers - made face to face contact with a lot of LGS/businesses. Which has no downside...

I LIKE the way this is beginning! :)

And for those of you on the fence about helping - there are no better folks to work with, down to earth and fighting the good fight.

Oh BTW - added another donation to CGF this year... not a lot, but working on it.

Connor P Price
07-29-2010, 12:26 AM
Seems like a slam dunk case.

Joe
07-29-2010, 12:26 AM
Awesome news :)

Uriah02
07-29-2010, 12:27 AM
Bravo gentlemen bravo!

mosinnagantm9130
07-29-2010, 12:31 AM
:D:D:D

I think it's safe to say that the S is about to HTF for California firearm laws.

wildhawker
07-29-2010, 12:37 AM
And my assistance was not that much...

I clearly recall how very invested you and others were in our fight against the bill, contributing countless hours, copies and miles to the cause.

Some of you drove hundreds of miles. Some stayed up until midnight packaging at shipping at the LAX USPS to get the ~100,000 flyers you professionally printed hand-cut out the door and into everyone's eager hands. Some ran stacks of flyers around to others for distribution, and many delivered them to hundreds of locations from Oregon to Mexico to Nevada, even persuading some local Wal-Marts and Big 5s into placing them on the counter.

It was an awesome display, and one that changed California forever.

WE. SHOWED. UP.

Now we're here for good. And they, the gun grabbers, are going to lose.

N6ATF
07-29-2010, 12:38 AM
But we can make the cost of the lawsuit (to California) very public during his re-election campaign.

What cost? The state will just refuse to pay like D.C. (http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/07/dc-fights-31-million-fee-request-in-handgun-case.html), and likely Chicago.

ChrisTKHarris
07-29-2010, 12:39 AM
Woot Woot

AlliedArmory
07-29-2010, 1:40 AM
Great News!

Scott Connors
07-29-2010, 2:04 AM
There were multiple, significant reasons why this suit and Parker were filed when they were. Those reasons will become evident eventually.

Law student should get credits just for following this forum. It is a real seminar in legal tactics and strategy.

Scott Connors
07-29-2010, 2:10 AM
So this is a two pronged attack with the CRPA / NRA suit the other prong?

.

I think that Patton is about to hook up with Bradley at Bastogne.

:tank:

wildhawker
07-29-2010, 2:21 AM
Legal credit? We can do that too: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4692854#post4692854

putput
07-29-2010, 7:48 AM
I feel a group buy is a comin'...

Why not just drop ship a mail-ordered case of 9mm WWB to his office with a note saying that the range time is on us if he'd ever like to take an NRA class sometime?

(note: I am not suggesting anyone - read: DO NOT - do anything which could even be perceived as a threat, ever).

schnellfeuer300
07-29-2010, 8:01 AM
Great news, just donated to CGF again.

Thanks for all you do.

Dubious_Beans
07-29-2010, 8:18 AM
Just made my very first CGF donation.
It felt good. I'm gonna have to do that again when I can afford it. :)

Thank you all very much for helping keep our rights alive!

jpr9954
07-29-2010, 8:26 AM
What cost? The state will just refuse to pay like D.C. (http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/07/dc-fights-31-million-fee-request-in-handgun-case.html), and likely Chicago.

They will still have the cost of defending against three lawsuits. Even with the budget problems your state has, I imagine lawyers get paid well.

Skidmark
07-29-2010, 8:29 AM
Again, the Right People are looking out for the rest of us. Thank you for all you do, I am humbled by your dedication.

Absolutely agree, glad to know my contributions are supporting such efforts.

The Director
07-29-2010, 8:34 AM
Awesome. What a cool angle - the trucker thing I mean. They probably never saw that coming.

Window_Seat
07-29-2010, 10:07 AM
Just made my very first CGF donation.
It felt good. I'm gonna have to do that again when I can afford it. :)

Thank you all very much for helping keep our rights alive!

Welcome to CGN, and THANKS for donating to this cause. Every dollar most DEFINITELY counts here, and this is the result.

I predict that there will certainly be winners on the right side in this matter!;)

Erik.

GrizzlyGuy
07-29-2010, 10:27 AM
This is most excellent news! I just dropped another C-note into the CGF coffers via GPal (#BA5F7ED37D3A3C). Go get 'em boys! :gura:

NiteQwill
07-29-2010, 10:33 AM
Eff yea!

Untamed1972
07-29-2010, 11:05 AM
Awesome. What a cool angle - the trucker thing I mean. They probably never saw that coming.

They never see it coming because they dont seem to bother themselves with trivial concerns like the law, the constitution, and supreme court decisions when drafting new laws, cuz they think they can do whatever they want.

Dont you know....only conservatives and republicans can discriminate and violate civil rights!

bwiese
07-29-2010, 11:17 AM
Thank you above folks for the donations - Gene's statement "Freedom isn't free" is most apt.

The suit itself was essentially all ready and 'on the burner' for quite some time, and only some externally-imposed delays really impinged on this not being filed earlier.

With three different modes of attack, something's gotta give ;)

N6ATF
07-29-2010, 11:21 AM
They will still have the cost of defending against three lawsuits. Even with the budget problems your state has, I imagine lawyers get paid well.

They'll claim LCAV worked the cases pro-bono.

tac
07-29-2010, 11:24 AM
nice - good luck

Steyr_223
07-29-2010, 11:28 AM
Thanks for all the effort! I will get a check out this week.

Window_Seat
07-29-2010, 11:36 AM
Is this effort going to have it's own CGF dedicated donation fund?

Erik.

wildhawker
07-29-2010, 12:18 PM
Is this effort going to have it's own CGF dedicated donation fund?

Erik.

We generally do not segregate contributions.

FirstFlight
07-29-2010, 12:52 PM
It sure is encouraging when one can actually see the results of the bang from their buck!

+etco2
07-29-2010, 1:00 PM
Making another donation to the CGF makes me feel like I'm doing to the state what they do to me each April.

wildhawker
07-29-2010, 1:09 PM
Making another donation to the CGF makes me feel like I'm doing to the state what they do to me each April.

This is a great sig line, and thank you for the support!

+etco2
07-29-2010, 1:18 PM
It's my pleasure.

anthonyca
07-29-2010, 1:25 PM
Making another donation to the CGF makes me feel like I'm doing to the state what they do to me each April.

That was great. Stick it to em.

balddragn
07-29-2010, 1:39 PM
I don't spend as much time here as I would like since I'm out teaching people how to shoot on most weekends with Appleseed. But as a member of the Folsom Shooting Club and a grateful Californian I figured I'd let my checkbook do the talking this time.

I don't like to be crass but sometime it's the most direct route forward. I just sent in $250 as a sign of my gratitude and I'd like to challenge the rest of the readers to follows that lead as best as they can.

Rod Jackson

wildhawker
07-29-2010, 1:46 PM
Rod,

Just saw that come through, and thank you very much for your support.

We should all remember that the most effective way to advance our culture is to take a new shooter to the range. Thanks to Rod and folks like him, we're guaranteed to have a thriving body of enthusiasts tomorrow.


I don't spend as much time here as I would like since I'm out teaching people how to shoot on most weekends with Appleseed. But as a member of the Folsom Shooting Club and a grateful Californian I figured I'd let my checkbook do the talking this time.

I don't like to be crass but sometime it's the most direct route forward. I just sent in $250 as a sign of my gratitude and I'd like to challenge the rest of the readers to follows that lead as best as they can.

Rod Jackson

yellowfin
07-29-2010, 1:46 PM
I wonder how far the opposition will fight this. It might be really nice having this at the big time level to be able to fight a few bad NY and NJ laws.

wash
07-29-2010, 2:03 PM
I'm a little light in the checkbook after going on vacation and a couple unexpected bills.

While I'm not going to pledge money at this time, I'm going to do the next best thing and volunteer at the booth for the next SF gun show.

It's going to be great handing out new flyers that show the incredible amount of new cases that have been filed since McDonald vs. Chicago!

I think I'm going to start writing one now if CGF hasn't beat me to the punch.

jb7706
07-29-2010, 2:35 PM
Rod,

Just saw that come through, and thank you very much for your support.

We should all remember that the most effective way to advance our culture is to take a new shooter to the range. Thanks to Rod and folks like him, we're guaranteed to have a thriving body of enthusiasts tomorrow.

FWIW Rod runs a thriving Appleseed program at Sac Valley, he has had hundreds of shooters out there over the past couple of years. Please take a weekend to attend his program or the one nearest you, it's about a lot more than just shooting. You will gain a whole new respect for your country and the heroes that founded it. Very well worth the pittance of a fee he charges.

HowardW56
07-29-2010, 2:57 PM
My Dillon 650 allows my to sidestep deLeon's folly

I thought AB 962 regulated reloading components too...

wildhawker
07-29-2010, 3:05 PM
I thought AB 962 regulated reloading components too...

No; Librarian had a great writeup on that somewhere if someone can hunt that down.

jb7706
07-29-2010, 3:08 PM
I thought AB 962 regulated reloading components too...

No. PC 12318 has nothing whatever to do with reloading.

jb7706
07-29-2010, 3:13 PM
No; Librarian had a great writeup on that somewhere if someone can hunt that down.

Here:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230961&highlight=ab962+reloading

ke6guj
07-29-2010, 3:17 PM
I thought AB 962 regulated reloading components too...

nope. common misconception though.

Meplat
07-29-2010, 4:06 PM
I hope those who coined the term Ring of Fire now understand what happens when you throw gasoline on a fuming teenager.

Probably right plaintiffs. Remember that Jason Davis is the lawyer for all of the plaintiffs except for Chuck Michel who is representing the NRA. It takes a special kind of gumption, "fire in the belly", if you will, to be a good plaintiff for something you believe in.

hoffmang
07-29-2010, 4:19 PM
I hope those who coined the term Ring of Fire now understand what happens when you throw gasoline on a fuming teenager.

Damn straight! Payback is a *****.

And yeah, I know the filters will catch that, but it needs to be said.

-Gene

Window_Seat
07-29-2010, 4:33 PM
I hope those who coined the term Ring of Fire now understand what happens when you throw gasoline on a fuming teenager.

This one is worthy of a sig line, but I don't have enough room in mine, (I don't think), can I try, or maybe someone else can?

Erik.

Shotgun Man
07-29-2010, 4:50 PM
nope. common misconception though.

How come the State Ammunition lawsuit (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B265PzaPpihQYTlhYWIxNTktYjExNy00YTdiL Tk5MjUtZGRhMTJkYzNjMzIz&hl=en)talks so much about bullets, clips, etc.? Is he challenging existing law as well as AB 962?

ke6guj
07-29-2010, 5:41 PM
How come the State Ammunition lawsuit (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B265PzaPpihQYTlhYWIxNTktYjExNy00YTdiL Tk5MjUtZGRhMTJkYzNjMzIz&hl=en)talks so much about bullets, clips, etc.? Is he challenging existing law as well as AB 962?


OK, yes, components are part of AB962, but not part of the mail-order ban portion of 962. The handgun ammo mail-order ban, 12318, uses a defintion of handgun ammo that does not not include components.

the portion of AB962 that includes components is this.

12316 (b) (1) No person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearmunder Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103
of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall own, possess, or have
under his or her custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded
ammunition.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "ammunition" shall include,
but not be limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed
loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a
firearm with a deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include
blanks.

and this;
12317. (a) Any person, corporation, or firm who supplies,
delivers, sells, or gives possession or control of, any ammunition to
any person who he or she knows or using reasonable care should know
is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under his or her
custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition pursuant to
paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 12316, is guilty
of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(c) For purposes of this section, "ammunition" shall include, but
not be limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed
loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a
firearm with deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include
blanks.

those definitions of "ammunition" that include componentsonly apply to those specific sections of AB962.

They do not apply to the sequestiziation of handgun ammo that is effect now, nor does it it apply to the parts of AB962 that go into effect next year ( the mail-order ban and the logging of FTF sales).



What State Ammo is doing is showing that there are confusing definitions of ammo in AB962.

hill billy
07-29-2010, 6:19 PM
Right on! With regard to Bill's statement on the first occasionally a gang bang is what people want to see. Lord knows I do.

hoffmang
07-29-2010, 8:50 PM
How come the State Ammunition lawsuit (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B265PzaPpihQYTlhYWIxNTktYjExNy00YTdiL Tk5MjUtZGRhMTJkYzNjMzIz&hl=en)talks so much about bullets, clips, etc.? Is he challenging existing law as well as AB 962?

Even some attorneys don't understand it as well as Librarian. Counsel in State Ammo and I have been playing phone tag on the issue.

-Gene

Citadelonline
07-30-2010, 12:51 AM
A question for legal counsel:
I'm extremely grateful this action was brought to challenge AB 962 and for the participating plaintiffs, but where are the big manufacturers like Winchester, Remington and Federal? For that matter where are the small ammo makers? Shouldn't they all be part of this? Seems to me if an entire state was preparing to essentially boycott my product I'd want to be on board.

wildhawker
07-30-2010, 2:21 AM
If the manufacturers and distributors donated 5% of what we'll be opening up for them over the next decade, we'd be in very good shape.

+etco2
07-30-2010, 10:59 AM
I'm pretty new here and want to become Calguns literate. Can someone provide context for the "ring of fire" and "gasoline/fuming teenager" comments. Thanks

dantodd
07-30-2010, 11:26 AM
I'm pretty new here and want to become Calguns literate. Can someone provide context for the "ring of fire" and "gasoline/fuming teenager" comments. Thanks

Can't help with the teenager reference but "ring of fire" you can read about here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryco_Arms/Jennings_Firearms/Jimenez_Arms)

Jason Davis (one of the good attorneys who support CalGunners and advertises and posts on this forum) is from one of the Ring of Fire families and includes a "ring of fire" in his law office's logo.

jdberger
07-30-2010, 11:30 AM
I'm pretty new here and want to become Calguns literate. Can someone provide context for the "ring of fire" and "gasoline/fuming teenager" comments. Thanks

The "Ring of Fire" was a term coined by the Antis in the '90s to describe a number of gun manufacturers who were making inexpensive semi-automatic pistols. These guns went my the manufacture names of Raven, Jennings, Phoenix Arms, Bryco, Davis, etc.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/ring/hazard.html

These guns were inexpensive by design. They weren't designed for high volume shooting or competition. They were designed to provide an affordable product to people who couldn't spend $700 on a Colt.

Since they were inexpensive they ended up in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods which had a higher per-capita incidence of violent crime. The Antis claimed that the "Ring of Fire" companies were deliberately marketing to criminals.

To combat the acquisition of guns by poor (and colored) people, the Antis devised the "Safe Handgun Roster". The idea was that the inexpensive guns wouldn't pass the stringent "safety" tests. Only expensive guns would be available for purchase.

The Antis also sponsored a ton of litigation against the "Ring of Fire" companies. The lawsuits claimed that Davis, et al. was responsible for crimes committed with their guns. They also claimed that the guns were "unsafe". The expense of the litigation was so onerous that it essentially ran most of them out of business.

I'll leave the gasoline/fuming teenager explanation to someone else as I don't know if I have permission to relate the story.

huck
07-30-2010, 11:37 AM
If the manufacturers and distributors donated 5% of what we'll be opening up for them over the next decade, we'd be in very good shape.

I think those manufacturers tend to fund the NRA and leave it at that.

+etco2
07-30-2010, 11:43 AM
Thanks for the answers. I can't wait to hear the rest.... maybe?????

Charlie50
07-30-2010, 11:53 AM
Thank you for helping to support gun owners in California. It is sometimes a little depressing for some life-time residents of this state. We've gone so far down this quagmire of a road that its hard to believe - time to get the wheels out of the muddy ruts, get some traction and move forward. Thanks again Calgun contributors! To those of you lurking about, donate some money.

GuyW
07-30-2010, 11:56 AM
Can't help with the teenager reference but "ring of fire" you can read about here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryco_Arms/Jennings_Firearms/Jimenez_Arms)

Jason Davis (one of the good attorneys who support CalGunners and advertises and posts on this forum) is from one of the Ring of Fire families and includes a "ring of fire" in his law office's logo.

LOL! somehow I missed this linkage....very kool...

.

7x57
07-30-2010, 12:06 PM
Jason Davis (one of the good attorneys who support CalGunners and advertises and posts on this forum) is from one of the Ring of Fire families and includes a "ring of fire" in his law office's logo.

I didn't know that either--thanks.

7x57

ke6guj
07-30-2010, 1:02 PM
Can't help with the teenager reference but "ring of fire" you can read about here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryco_Arms/Jennings_Firearms/Jimenez_Arms)

Jason Davis (one of the good attorneys who support CalGunners and advertises and posts on this forum) is from one of the Ring of Fire families and includes a "ring of fire" in his law office's logo.I read the "teenager" reference as meaning that the "persecution" of the "ring of fire" companies started when Jason Davis was a teenager, and that was the gasoline that they threw on him that made him decide to be a lawyer that focused on gun law. That would be my guess what was meant.

Meplat
07-30-2010, 7:26 PM
The bad news is The State of CA has lawyers on staff just sitting around abusing themselves. The good new is they are not very good lawyers.They will still have the cost of defending against three lawsuits. Even with the budget problems your state has, I imagine lawyers get paid well.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-30-2010, 7:27 PM
The good new is they are not very good lawyers.

Not true. Not true at all. Where do you get this idea?

wildhawker
07-30-2010, 7:36 PM
Not true. Not true at all. Where do you get this idea?

Indeed; they are getting smarter and more tuned in, not the opposite.

GuyW
07-30-2010, 8:24 PM
Not true. Not true at all. Where do you get this idea?

Probably because, on average, a government [whatever] is not as sharp/hard working/competent as a private sector [whatever]. Its an immutable fact of the universe....

.

Fyathyrio
07-30-2010, 9:19 PM
Well, there's at least one good benefit that came from this bill; I placed an order for my press and reloading supplies the day that Arnie signed this POS. Once it's completely dead I'll have to send him a think you note and maybe a picture of my reloading bench with all the rounds I've made piled up on it.

Thanks CGF!

steadyrock
07-30-2010, 9:36 PM
Indeed; they are getting smarter and more tuned in, not the opposite.

And the good news is, with the right amount of good cop/bad cop "edu-persuasion", some of them can be made to see the light.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
07-30-2010, 9:59 PM
Probably because, on average, a government [whatever] is not as sharp/hard working/competent as a private sector [whatever]. Its an immutable fact of the universe....

.

This does not hold true for lawyers in public service for a few reasons, but there are two main ones: 1) a lot of good lawyers will sacrifice a higher paying associate position in a firm to serve in the government in order to get invaluable trial experience, which will make them even more competitive and valuable in the private sector when they get out (so they have an incentive); and 2) many good attorneys, believe it or not, really believe in public service.

Code7inOaktown
07-30-2010, 10:13 PM
There was no "savings clause" in AB-962 and a lot of reasons why success in this suit should take the whole law down.

Also, please remember that freedom isn't free. Donate (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate) to the Calguns Foundation today.

-Gene

Money's tight, one kid in pre school, another going to private school but I just sent over a donation. I'll try to keep it coming every few months as allowed but kick some legal ***!

Meplat
07-30-2010, 10:48 PM
This one is worthy of a sig line, but I don't have enough room in mine, (I don't think), can I try, or maybe someone else can?

Erik.

Sure!

Meplat
07-30-2010, 11:09 PM
I read the "teenager" reference as meaning that the "persecution" of the "ring of fire" companies started when Jason Davis was a teenager, and that was the gasoline that they threw on him that made him decide to be a lawyer that focused on gun law. That would be my guess what was meant.

That s exactly what I meant. However, that contains a large dose of assumption on my part. My apologies to Mr. Davis if I have overstepped or offended in any way.

Meplat
07-30-2010, 11:28 PM
I once had a very large professional stake in litigation engaged in by State Staff Lawyers. They were tripping over themselves like Keystone Cops. They made no effort to familiarize themselves with the particulars of the case. It would be easy to assume they threw it on purpose, and maybe they did on order of higher political authority. We got whipped bad.

Not true. Not true at all. Where do you get this idea?

Window_Seat
07-30-2010, 11:38 PM
Probably because, on average, a government [whatever] is not as sharp/hard working/competent as a private sector [whatever]. Its an immutable fact of the universe....

.

This reminds me of certain debates I have had with a neighbor on the subject of unconstitutional this, and constitutional that, and (her) logic is that if they pass the left winged socialist legislation, that's a good thing. If it's unconstitutional, that's alright until the courts determine that. Meanwhile, life is good if they pass it, and then... I ask her to forget about the cause for a minute, and think about what she will do when her tax dollars go not to the program of her liking, but to the lawyer who is entitled to being reimbursed millions in TP$ because of the unconstitutional measure(s) that was passed without regard to 220+ years of law?

There is only one thing that I'm critical of as far as how the Framers drafted the Constitution. If there were something that made lawmakers personally reimburse the taxpayers for crap they authored and voted for which is deemed a blatant violation of that Constitutional law. Since there isn't such a clause that I know of, we will continue to have LMs completely thumb their noses the way they are doing, and be safe in their cocoons.

As far as I'm concerned, they got more than they bargained for with all the 20,000+ UC GC regs on the "books", and we have been the laughing stock for much too long, but we are slowly (but surely) turning the tables, and the weapons we are using is the passion that we continue to display.

Keep it up.

Erik.

wildhawker
07-31-2010, 1:07 AM
Probably because, on average, a government [whatever] is not as sharp/hard working/competent as a private sector [whatever]. Its an immutable fact of the universe....

.

On average, the decisionmakers related to our issues are not the typical office drones. It's a mistake to generalize and underestimate how hard working and passionate about public service some of these very competent folks are.

ETA: Sean already articulated an excellent point on the subject.

Python2
07-31-2010, 7:58 AM
This does not hold true for lawyers in public service for a few reasons, but there are two main ones: 1) a lot of good lawyers will sacrifice a higher paying associate position in a firm to serve in the government in order to get invaluable trial experience, which will make them even more competitive and valuable in the private sector when they get out (so they have an incentive); and 2) many good attorneys, believe it or not, really believe in public service.

Hmnn....thats interesting....more of the opposite in my profession, learned it from some 40 years of private practice as a registered professional engineer and dealing with government employed engineers.

calAWBsux
07-31-2010, 3:47 PM
There was no "savings clause" in AB-962 and a lot of reasons why success in this suit should take the whole law down.

Also, please remember that freedom isn't free. Donate (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate) to the Calguns Foundation today.

-Gene

Just sent a $100. Thanks for all the hard work, gents!

Doug L
07-31-2010, 4:07 PM
Truckers and gun owner groups file lawsuit against California to void handgun ammunition shipping ban
Gene, Brandon, et al, excellent news.

Thank you!!!

Fjold
07-31-2010, 4:31 PM
OK. I like this.

Donation made through GPal (I hope you get the money).

GPal transaction ID: BA5F7ED*****FC

boingo
08-14-2010, 12:46 PM
What's the latest on this? Has an injunction stalling the ban till after the suit been successfully filed?

wildhawker
08-14-2010, 2:31 PM
Latest:

Plaintiffs Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., Erik Royce, Brandon Elias, Folsom Shooting Club, Inc., the Calguns Foundation, Inc., and National Rifle Association, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and defendants Steven Lindley, in his official capacity as Acting Chief of the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms, the State of California, and the
California Department of Justice (collectively, “Defendants”), through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree that, pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), the time in which Defendants may respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief be extended for 28 days to September 17, 2010.

Black_Talon
08-14-2010, 7:09 PM
Latest:

Can you translate that into English? :)

Apocalypsenerd
08-14-2010, 7:57 PM
I believe it means that the state has until Sept 17th to file a response to the lawsuit.

of course, I am not fluent in legalese.

otteray
08-14-2010, 7:58 PM
I think it means that the defendants ('guvment folks) are scratching their heads 'til their scalps are bleeding a bit, trying to figure a good way out.
I'm a retired carpenter by trade; that's how I see it.
At least, I hope that's what it means.

Citadelonline
08-14-2010, 8:14 PM
Can you translate that into English? :)
Means the defendants (the state DOJ et al) have until September 17, 2010 to respond to the plaintiffs motion for a temporary injunction.

jdberger
08-14-2010, 8:14 PM
^^
That's what it means.

And it means that Plaintiff's essentially said, "sure, you can take another 28 days to answer the complaint. Have at it."

mblat
08-14-2010, 8:23 PM
^^
That's what it means.

And it means that Plaintiff's essentially said, "sure, you can take another 28 days to answer the complaint. Have at it."

yes, but why?

Shotgun Man
08-14-2010, 8:30 PM
yes, but why?

Common courtesy, and if you did not stipulate, chances are the adverse party would get the same result by going to the judge.

hoffmang
08-14-2010, 11:47 PM
Common courtesy, and if you did not stipulate, chances are the adverse party would get the same result by going to the judge.

This.

-Gene

skyadrenaline
08-15-2010, 9:36 AM
Go get 'em!

Took two of my friends shooting this past week. I've been working it in slowly... first I got one of them hooked on Top Shot, and showed him some IPSC videos on youtube, and he made the comment "man i really want to shoot now." I jumped on that and took him and his fiancee to the range the next day. They loved it :D Next step is educating them about constitutional rights.

I'm working on another couple as well, the guy wants to go shooting, the fiancee... hardcore liberal. We'll win her over eventually. ;)

curtisfong
08-15-2010, 10:45 AM
I'm working on another couple as well, the guy wants to go shooting, the fiancee... hardcore liberal. We'll win her over eventually. ;)

Well done. We need more people like you.

bballwizard05
08-18-2010, 3:33 PM
so were kinda just waiting until sept 17 to see what happens next?

chris
08-18-2010, 6:21 PM
good news to hear. i hope this law goes in the trash where it belongs.

turbogg
08-18-2010, 6:45 PM
Jason Davis is the lawyer for all of the plaintiffs except for Chuck Michel who is representing the NRA.

Thanks to Jason Davis, Chuck Michel, and CGF!! You are all truly great defenders of the Constitution!

CaliforniaLiberal
08-18-2010, 8:48 PM
Thanks to Jason Davis, Chuck Michel, and CGF!! You are all truly great defenders of the Constitution!


+1000

Yes! Thanks to all you hard working Patriots!

May the Gods grant Victory to you and all who sail with you.

:79:

Fyathyrio
08-18-2010, 9:45 PM
I'm working on another couple as well, the guy wants to go shooting, the fiancee... hardcore liberal. We'll win her over eventually. ;)
Hopefully you'll be successful here, but never underestimate the power of snooch! Look what Maria Shriver has done to the Guvernator who signed this lousy bill into law!

exklusve
08-19-2010, 12:10 PM
Thanks again CFG! You guys are totally kicking some tail.
:thumbsup:

I need to convience my wife to let me start donating.

Maestro Pistolero
08-19-2010, 12:50 PM
I need to convience my wife to let me start donating.Take it out of the OTHER account ;). You know, the discretionary one.

jb7706
08-19-2010, 2:34 PM
Thanks again CFG! You guys are totally kicking some tail.
:thumbsup:

I need to convience my wife to let me start donating.

It's a tax deduction to a civil rights organization. Or you can tell her that you will sacrifice the cost of one box of ammo per month and send that to CGF. Set it up on your bill pay site and it's painless.

Stainned
08-19-2010, 2:54 PM
Thank you very much!

G17GUY
09-12-2010, 8:55 AM
5 days for a response!:yes:

ricochet
09-12-2010, 10:33 AM
I went back and re-read the whole thread. Did I read right that striking down the FTF transaction part of AB962 will trash the whole bill ? I was thinking it would just take that part of it out as unenforceable.

Whether it trashes the whole bill or just the FTF part; the hard work is appreciated.

As soon as I get my company match working again; CGF has my monetary support.

Merle
09-12-2010, 11:16 AM
Common courtesy, and if you did not stipulate, chances are the adverse party would get the same result by going to the judge.

So if someone wants to interfere with a right, give them more time (initial filing was 7/28/2010) to figure out a course of action?

Why not a simple "no" - go talk to the judge and convince them, you've had plenty of time to figure out how to address this. If they can (not) convince the judge, so be it.

ricochet
09-12-2010, 11:20 AM
I suspect it wins brownie points with the judge
So if someone wants to interfere with a right, give them more time (initial filing was 7/28/2010) to figure out a course of action?

Why not a simple "no" - go talk to the judge and convince them, you've had plenty of time to figure out how to address this. If they can (not) convince the judge, so be it.

383green
09-12-2010, 11:25 AM
When this is all over, the defendant won't be able to plausibly appeal on the grounds that they were not given adequate time to prepare their defense. The legal system moves slowly, and giving them another month to prepare their defense isn't a big deal; it helps us more than it hurts us.

Remember, in our legal system a defendant is to be assumed innocent until proven guilty and given a fair opportunity to prepare their defense. Even if we don't like them, and even if we fully intend to smash them under our proverbial boot heel.

hoffmang
09-12-2010, 12:29 PM
We have enough time to enjoin the law before it goes into effect (the interstate delivery parts.)

-Gene

bwiese
09-12-2010, 2:39 PM
I once had a very large professional stake in litigation engaged in by State Staff Lawyers. They were tripping over themselves like Keystone Cops. They made no effort to familiarize themselves with the particulars of the case. It would be easy to assume they threw it on purpose, and maybe they did on order of higher political authority. We got whipped bad.

Usually lawyers don't 'throw' cases - all sorts of ramifications, loss of bar cards (or worse) if found out etc.

But state offices have budgets and pools of lawyers with varying skills and experience levels.
Structuring of work assignments can get the desired results.

Let's say you're the Bush Admin and there's an EPA regulation your party and supporters don't like.
But you have to follow the law as it stands and you've dillydallied and stalled as long as you can.

So a lawsuit against the regulation comes in - the Bush-appointed administrator (who represents
the Administration) can take some measures to assign good lawyers to other cases and he can also
legally decide "maybe we give some of these young guys fresh outta law school some experience on
a case like this" as a bit of "employee development". Meantime the people doing the suit are the
graduated from Lawyers From Hell law school and have 15-20yrs experience. Who wins? :)

OleCuss
09-12-2010, 4:16 PM
The concern that I have is that if the courts take their own sweet time we'll have some of the ammo providers starting to drop out of the market as February approaches.

The way I figure it, you could have some retailers starting to phase themselves out of the market in December if ammo sales are not an essential component of their business.

So I agree that we've still got time. But if the courts think that a ruling on the injunction in late January would be sufficient - I beg to differ.

bwiese
09-12-2010, 4:27 PM
The concern that I have is that if the courts take their own sweet time we'll have some of the ammo providers starting to drop out of the market as February approaches.

The marketplace can take care of that with Clever Aggressive Intermediaries.

When the f***ups at Fulton Armory threatened theft charges against Wes of 10% Firearms for acquiring Fulton OLLs and turned the order around in mid-air, other folks stepped up to the bar because they were (1) Properly Educated with good materials, and (2) potential profits in larger volumes.

Yeah, there might be some hiccoughs - but those are inevitable when a law like this passes.

What's refreshing about this instance is that it's one of the few times where we have a very good chance of killing a law before it fully engages and behaviors get set in.

glockwise2000
09-12-2010, 4:48 PM
Go get 'em!

Took two of my friends shooting this past week. I've been working it in slowly... first I got one of them hooked on Top Shot, and showed him some IPSC videos on youtube, and he made the comment "man i really want to shoot now." I jumped on that and took him and his fiancee to the range the next day. They loved it :D Next step is educating them about constitutional rights.

I'm working on another couple as well, the guy wants to go shooting, the fiancee... hardcore liberal. We'll win her over eventually. ;)

Likewise. Today, September 12, I was able to discuss why and how you could practice your 2A rights to a friend's friend and his wife, who BTW is a big liberal and doesn't believe in 2A until recently their quiet upscale neighborhood was infested with home burglaries.

We ended up convincing and buying a G34 at BGS today. We were trying to buy ammo at Cabela's but their site is down (this would come in later, I hope). But at least the gun part has been purchase and tomorrow I have to mail, as a courtesy, the check for payment to BGS.

Hopefully these guys would be a future CG member. As of now they are just lookey lew on this site. Trying to convince them to donate at CGF but was told they will look at it.

hoffmang
09-12-2010, 8:20 PM
The concern that I have is that if the courts take their own sweet time we'll have some of the ammo providers starting to drop out of the market as February approaches.

The way I figure it, you could have some retailers starting to phase themselves out of the market in December if ammo sales are not an essential component of their business.

So I agree that we've still got time. But if the courts think that a ruling on the injunction in late January would be sufficient - I beg to differ.

This effect is the whole reason you can get a preliminary injunction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_injunction). PI's also come with accelerated briefing and decision schedules.

-Gene

Window_Seat
09-18-2010, 10:34 AM
I figure this is typical.

Case docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.211385/gov.uscourts.caed.211385.docket.html) updated this AM:

Motion to Dismiss
Points and Authorities
Request for Judical Notice
Certificate of Service

There is no "long description" or a link to a .pdf page for the reply, just the short description above. I imagine the rest will be posted on Monday, and we'll all get to see the reply.

Erik.

dantodd
09-18-2010, 11:17 AM
I figure this is typical.

Case docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.211385/gov.uscourts.caed.211385.docket.html) updated this AM:



There is no "long description" or a link to a .pdf page for the reply, just the short description above. I imagine the rest will be posted on Monday, and we'll all get to see the reply.

Erik.

Most likely it just hasn't been RECAPped yet. It's a convoluted system. The documents are public but the court wants to be compensated for producing them. So, someone has to pay the courts for the documents. But, since they are public documents you can redistribute them freely. Archive.org and RECAP provide a convenient place through which people who have paid for a copy of court documents can re-distribute them.

hoffmang
09-18-2010, 3:20 PM
California filed a motion to dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.211385/gov.uscourts.caed.211385.12.1.pdf) on Friday.

-Gene

Window_Seat
09-18-2010, 3:25 PM
Thanks, Gene! You beat me to it!

Reading it now.

Erik.

hoffmang
09-18-2010, 3:28 PM
Also, the NRA state case (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.211385/gov.uscourts.caed.211385.12.2.pdf) is attached to their motion to dismiss:



-Gene

383green
09-18-2010, 3:30 PM
I'm just starting to read the motion to dismiss. Their first argument appears to be, basically, "Even though we've shot you in the face, you can't take us to court yet because you have not yet bled out."

ETA: Or perhaps more accurately, "We have pledged to and are legally bound to shoot you in the face next February, but since we haven't pulled the trigger yet, your claim that you will be injured next February is mere speculation."

hill billy
09-18-2010, 3:31 PM
Gene do you have an opinion on the ripeness angle?

bballwizard05
09-18-2010, 3:32 PM
Can someone give me a laymans update on how this is going. I've been hoping with all my heart that this will get shot down, and have been telling people about all the injunctions and such. how is this looking?

hoffmang
09-18-2010, 3:38 PM
Gene do you have an opinion on the ripeness angle?

There is a long lead time to make the changes required to attempt to change routes and services to comply with the law early next year. We made that point in our complaint and for this motion it has to be assumed true.

-Gene

Fjold
09-18-2010, 3:45 PM
The State says that no harm has been done yet and no one knows if any harm will be done because the plaintiff's argument is all based on speculation therefore the case should be dismissed. It also says that citizens cannot sue States in Federal Court so that is another reason that the suit should be dismissed.

Window_Seat
09-18-2010, 3:48 PM
"there must be a connection between the official sued and enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional statute, and there must be a threat of enforcement."

And here's your "threat of enforcement":

Plaintiffs allege that in this capacity he is "responsible for formulating, executing and administering the State of California's laws, customs, practices, and policies at issue in this lawsuit; and will-in fact enforce the challenged laws, customs, and practices against Plaintiffs upon their effective date."

Erik.

hill billy
09-18-2010, 3:48 PM
The State says that no harm has been done yet and no one knows if any harm will be done because the plaintiff's argument is all based on speculation therefore the case should be dismissed. It also says that citizens cannot sue States in Federal Court so that is another reason that the suit should be dismissed.

Their claim that the Folsom shooting club is speculating about their future harm is laughable and infuriating all at once.

hill billy
09-18-2010, 3:54 PM
As a small ammo manufacturer, I tell you that I have an awful lot at stake in this and I hope you (Gene, et al) are right. It would be impossible for me to overstate how much I despise Kevin DeLeon and the legislature right at this moment.

Window_Seat
09-18-2010, 4:10 PM
Hence, the Court cannot know precisely how the law might apply to, or be enforced against, these Plaintiffs. Because the allegations plead in the complaint are based not on fact, but on speculation, the issues presented are not ripe for adjudication by this Court.

So they have the legislation, the passed regulation, and would the DOJ not have guidelines and plans on how they would actually enforce the regulation, or does the Legislature just arbitrarily pass crap and does the DOJ, and other charged agencies just say "Huh, OH, OK, we'll enforce it, but we don't know how we'll pull it off"?

Sounds more like a BS excuse to me...

ETA:
The bare allegation that Chief Lindley "will enforce the law" upon its effective date in February 2011 is insufficient to establish a "real likelihood" that Chief Lindley will employ his general powers to enforce section 12318 against Plaintiffs.

So in other words, "Yeah, we might enforce the regulation, or we might not enforce the regulation, so whatcha gonna do?" LOL...

Erik.

orangeusa
09-18-2010, 4:26 PM
So, CGF and NRA have no standing in this case because they will not be harmed? And that there is no harm until the law is enacted (ripe)? And THEN it needs to be proved?

Doesn't that argument go both ways? That forcing FTF sales and thumbprints will reduce access to ammo to gang members/etc...? THAT has been proven?

And that potential losses of income to ammo sellers (Folsum Gun Club) has not been proven (is a stretch) ? (Forgive me if I've missed the point here).

QUESTION: How does Mr. Brown look now? I'm not comfortable with him as a candidate... Or is this Mr. Krauses' case....?

.

nick
09-18-2010, 4:29 PM
I'm just starting to read the motion to dismiss. Their first argument appears to be, basically, "Even though we've shot you in the face, you can't take us to court yet because you have not yet bled out."

ETA: Or perhaps more accurately, "We have pledged to and are legally bound to shoot you in the face next February, but since we haven't pulled the trigger yet, your claim that you will be injured next February is mere speculation."

Same logic as in the Montana case. "You received ATF letters threatening you with prosecution for breaking federal firearms laws, yet you haven't been arrested yet, so you have nothing to complain about, your risk of arrest is merely hypothetical".

Gray Peterson
09-18-2010, 4:31 PM
QUESTION: How does Mr. Brown look now? I'm not comfortable with him as a candidate... Or is this Mr. Krauses' case....?

.

Krause was assigned to the case. The motion to dismiss is laughable legal logic to the level I haven't seen in a while. I expect a preliminary injunction and a cross motion for summary judgment soon from our side.

yellowfin
09-18-2010, 4:31 PM
It would be impossible for me to overstate how much I despise Kevin DeLeon and the legislature right at this moment.When is that ever not the case?

Window_Seat
09-18-2010, 4:40 PM
I finished reading the reply. I'm very confident in our counsel. The state's litigation defense agenda is laughable.

ETA:

Here is a text select version of the reply:

Erik.

OleCuss
09-18-2010, 6:30 PM
OK, I got the impression that Krause may not be the favored child and they didn't want to stick anyone else with this loss.

Since there is some obligation for the AG to defend the passed laws there should be some effort in this matter so Krause is stuck. While there were a lot of citations I still got the feeling that this was almost a boilerplate response.

To me it looks like a relatively amateur defense put on because they have to - and that the author didn't get a whole lot of support or oversight.

It must suck to be the red-headed child of the AG's office.

If I'm getting this wrong I hope y'all will correct me.

hoffmang
09-18-2010, 8:07 PM
The AG's office is obligated to defend state statutes. I'm not at all concerned with this MTD but for one little fact (that doesn't go to the merits but does tell me something unflattering about the DAG in this case) that shouldn't be there.

Gray's speculation above isn't far off the mark.

-Gene

hill billy
09-18-2010, 10:03 PM
Krause was assigned to the case. The motion to dismiss is laughable legal logic to the level I haven't seen in a while. I expect a preliminary injunction and a cross motion for summary judgment soon from our side.

The AG's office is obligated to defend state statutes. I'm not at all concerned with this MTD but for one little fact (that doesn't go to the merits but does tell me something unflattering about the DAG in this case) that shouldn't be there.

Gray's speculation above isn't far off the mark.

-Gene

Good to hear.

When is that ever not the case?

Me in particular or the firearms community as a whole? :o I tend to wear my irritation on my sleeve a bit.

stitchnicklas
09-18-2010, 10:57 PM
so anyone giving odds on a injuction before the law hits??? 50-1?10-1?` 1-1?

Window_Seat
09-18-2010, 11:01 PM
so anyone giving odds on a injuction before the law hits??? 50-1?10-1?` 1-1?

Whatever the odds, we'll know about it in................................ 2 weeks. Now I'm going to eat a sandwich & take a nap.:D:p;):eek:

Erik.

stitchnicklas
09-18-2010, 11:56 PM
2 weeks????? awww not that again,mcdonald drove me nuts....2 weeks

Al Norris
09-19-2010, 4:06 PM
Also, the NRA state case (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.211385/gov.uscourts.caed.211385.12.2.pdf) is attached to their motion to dismiss:

Now that that cat is out of the bag, I guess I'm free to opine, um, elsewhere?

CMonfort
09-19-2010, 7:56 PM
Now that that cat is out of the bag, I guess I'm free to opine, um, elsewhere?

I apologize as we have been swamped at our office with litigation efforts lately, but we will be posting a case update tomorrow with links to relevant documents. Thank you all for your patience.

G17GUY
09-19-2010, 8:24 PM
I apologize as we have been swamped at our office with litigation efforts lately, but we will be posting a case update tomorrow with links to relevant documents. Thank you all for your patience.

Thanks for your hard work!

chip3757
09-19-2010, 8:37 PM
Why can't Jerry Brown tell his attourneys to take that MTD and shove it up their ....

When questioned by the anti's he could just tell them we are not going to waste taxpayer money trying to defend unconstitutional laws?

BigDogatPlay
09-19-2010, 8:40 PM
The AG's office is obligated to defend state statutes.

Props 187 and 8 (however you feel about either of those measures) pretty much put that obligation in the grave.... the state is obligated to defend what it feels like defending, or so it would seem.

:D

OTOH... the state's pleading for MTD in this action is more than a little thin. My tax dollars at work.

hoffmang
09-19-2010, 9:57 PM
Prop 8 is a bit different as there was an on point California Supreme Court ruling.

-Gene

dantodd
09-19-2010, 10:29 PM
Prop 8 is a bit different as there was an on point California Supreme Court ruling.

-Gene

As prop 8 was an amendment to the CA constitution it is superior to the CA Supreme Court. Either he is required to defend all laws or not. If so, then he shirked that responsibility in the case of prop 8. If not, then it is a valid question to ask why he is defending AB962, or any other case in which he does choose to defend the law.

Scarecrow Repair
09-19-2010, 10:42 PM
As prop 8 was an amendment to the CA constitution it is superior to the CA Supreme Court. Either he is required to defend all laws or not. If so, then he shirked that responsibility in the case of prop 8. If not, then it is a valid question to ask why he is defending AB962, or any other case in which he does choose to defend the law.

As Prop 8 was inferior to the US Constitution, your argument is useless.

chuckles48
09-19-2010, 11:19 PM
Just got to this part...
"Plaintiffs claims are barred by sovereign immunity"

I gather he's never heard of Ex parte Young. Well, whoever wrote the brief is going to get a very painful lesson in why Federal courts _can_ enjoin states from violating federal law.

Gray Peterson
09-20-2010, 8:17 AM
As prop 8 was an amendment to the CA constitution it is superior to the CA Supreme Court. Either he is required to defend all laws or not. If so, then he shirked that responsibility in the case of prop 8. If not, then it is a valid question to ask why he is defending AB962, or any other case in which he does choose to defend the law.

Look up Romer v. Evans. Gun owners are not recognized as a suspect or quasi-suspect class under the 14th amendment equal protection doctrine (though it equal protection does apply to license holders under Guillory v. Gates). In Re Marriage Cases and then Prop 8 creates a Romer v. Evans equal protection violation in the unique circumstances of what happened in California.

Let's say, for example, Sykes or Peruta happened in state court (this didn't happen, but just follow me for the moment), but then the anti-gunners put in a initiative constitutional amendment, banning gun carry for regular citizens and banning the state from ever allowing carry ever for regular citizens.

Would Jerry defend that in federal court? No.

BigDogatPlay
09-20-2010, 10:15 AM
As Prop 8 was inferior to the US Constitution, your argument is useless.

No, the argument is not useless until it's ruled upon in a court of appropriate authority. Prop 8 was not unconstitutional until it was ruled to be. And because there seems to be no interest (stomach) on the part of the state to defend it's laws and constitution on appeal, the ruling of a single lower level judge will stand without further review. Same thing happened in the matter of Prop 187.

The process worked to a point, even though the state did not participate in defending it's laws and constitution which is what I, personally, find offensive as a tax paying citizen.

In both matters the state tacitly, but completely, abrogated it's responsibility to defend the state constitution as lawfully amended by ballot initiative. Last time I checked there is not only a sworn duty incumbent upon an executive officer of the state to defend the laws of the state, but as an attorney admitted before the bar the Attorney General, and his professional staff, have an ethical obligation to represent the interest of their client... the people of the State of California. They do not, IMO, get the luxury of picking and choosing what they feel like defending.... particularly when it concerns initiative constitutional amendments passed by majorities of voters. Those, above all else, command a full and complete examination and argument if challenged.

When the rule of law is subjected to the twists and turns of partisan political wind, our society gets a little closer to it's end.

Gray Peterson
09-20-2010, 10:52 AM
No, the argument is not useless until it's ruled upon in a court of appropriate authority. Prop 8 was not unconstitutional until it was ruled to be. And because there seems to be no interest (stomach) on the part of the state to defend it's laws and constitution on appeal, the ruling of a single lower level judge will stand without further review. Same thing happened in the matter of Prop 187.

The underlined above is a incorrect. The following comes from my MSJ reply to Denver in my case:

Quite the contrary, it is clear that government officials are obligated to follow the Constitution of the United States. “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886). See also Kovacs v. First Union Home Equity Bank, 408 F.3d 291, 294 (6th Cir 2005); Towboat One, Inc. v. M/V Waterdog, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48628, 2008 AMC 1730 (S.D. Fla 2008). Local officials are “under a duty to obey the Constitution.” Board of Education v. York, 429 F.2d 66, 69

Your underlined comment shows an ignorance, that laws are constitutional until proven otherwise by a court.

The process worked to a point, even though the state did not participate in defending it's laws and constitution which is what I, personally, find offensive as a tax paying citizen.

The state is under no obligation to defend unconstitutional laws in court.

See Article III Section 3.5:

SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative
agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no
power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a
statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a
statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit
the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a
determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by
federal law or federal regulations.

The state has never refused to enforce Proposition Eight. In fact, the Department of Health (on advisement of the AG) told the county recorders to take taking marriage licenses from same gender couples. The above provisions do not even apply to the Governor or to the AG, but they enforced the statute against the plaintiffs. They enforced it until it was declared unconstitutional, and are following the judgment and stay by the 9th Circuit. They are doing everything by the book insofar as state law and the state constitution is concerned.

In both matters the state tacitly, but completely, abrogated it's responsibility to defend the state constitution as lawfully amended by ballot initiative. Last time I checked there is not only a sworn duty incumbent upon an executive officer of the state to defend the laws of the state, but as an attorney admitted before the bar the Attorney General, and his professional staff, have an ethical obligation to represent the interest of their client... the people of the State of California. They do not, IMO, get the luxury of picking and choosing what they feel like defending.... particularly when it concerns initiative constitutional amendments passed by majorities of voters. Those, above all else, command a full and complete examination and argument if challenged.

Also, it wasn't enacted by the people of the state of California. It was enacted by the voters who bothered to show up to vote in 2008. Subjecting fundamental rights and equal protection that is owned by every person alive in the state to the whims of those who bother to show up is anathema. Gun owners in this state have been subject to the tyrrany of the voting majority.

They are under no obligation to defend a statute, ethical or otherwise, or to appeal a negative decision. Jerry Brown made the right call here, not just because it's the right thing to do, but more important to fiscal conservatives, to save the state millions of dollars attorney fees for something it could not win. Now, the Defendant-Intervenors are on the hook rather than the state. Now that is being thrifty with funds.

When the rule of law is subjected to the twists and turns of partisan political wind, our society gets a little closer to it's end.

How is civil rights a partisan issue? Considering most of the Democratic party faithful keep throwing the G&L couples under the bus at every opportunity, there's been a significant political awakening in that particular community and they are starting to band together in a similar manner to the NRA (one issue only), to say that this particular civil right (marriage) is a partisan issue borders on the absurd.

thayne
09-20-2010, 11:11 AM
:threadjacked:

Gray Peterson
09-20-2010, 11:13 AM
:threadjacked:

Agreed.

hasserl
09-20-2010, 2:08 PM
OK, I got the impression that Krause may not be the favored child and they didn't want to stick anyone else with this loss.

Since there is some obligation for the AG to defend the passed laws there should be some effort in this matter so Krause is stuck. While there were a lot of citations I still got the feeling that this was almost a boilerplate response.

To me it looks like a relatively amateur defense put on because they have to - and that the author didn't get a whole lot of support or oversight.

It must suck to be the red-headed child of the AG's office.

If I'm getting this wrong I hope y'all will correct me.

They have to? You mean how they had to defend prop 8?

hasserl
09-20-2010, 2:19 PM
No, the argument is not useless until it's ruled upon in a court of appropriate authority. Prop 8 was not unconstitutional until it was ruled to be. And because there seems to be no interest (stomach) on the part of the state to defend it's laws and constitution on appeal, the ruling of a single lower level judge will stand without further review. Same thing happened in the matter of Prop 187.

The process worked to a point, even though the state did not participate in defending it's laws and constitution which is what I, personally, find offensive as a tax paying citizen.

In both matters the state tacitly, but completely, abrogated it's responsibility to defend the state constitution as lawfully amended by ballot initiative. Last time I checked there is not only a sworn duty incumbent upon an executive officer of the state to defend the laws of the state, but as an attorney admitted before the bar the Attorney General, and his professional staff, have an ethical obligation to represent the interest of their client... the people of the State of California. They do not, IMO, get the luxury of picking and choosing what they feel like defending.... particularly when it concerns initiative constitutional amendments passed by majorities of voters. Those, above all else, command a full and complete examination and argument if challenged.

When the rule of law is subjected to the twists and turns of partisan political wind, our society gets a little closer to it's end.

Nicely put, the mental gymnastics at play refuting this are illogical at best and leaning towards base and desperate.

OleCuss
09-20-2010, 3:03 PM
They have to? You mean how they had to defend prop 8?

I'd accept your edit, but I think it was Gray who was pointing out some of the finer points about what can or must be defended and needn't be.

I'm not sure I agree with Gray's statement. Not that I believe that he is wrong in his logic or knowledge of the relevant cases.

My thing is that I think the courts have done a lot of twisting of the obvious over time and it has stymied freedom rather than furthering it. We have come very close to devolving into a krytocracy and that is a pretty nasty development.

Gray Peterson
09-20-2010, 3:44 PM
I'd accept your edit, but I think it was Gray who was pointing out some of the finer points about what can or must be defended and needn't be.

I'm pointing out the legal facts.

I'm not sure I agree with Gray's statement. Not that I believe that he is wrong in his logic or knowledge of the relevant cases.

Jerry Brown's office defended the State of California in the In Re Marriage Cases case against Prop 22 and the 1977 statute prohibiting same gender couples from marrying.

Proposition 8 triggered a situation very similar to Romer v. Evans and US Department of Agriculture v. Moreno. Just because it involves marriage issues rather than being able to get the same kinds of protections offered based on race and religion doesn't make it any less applicable.

Also, California Proposition 14 (1963) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(1963)). Reitman v. Mulkey. Pat Brown (Jerry's dad) lost his re-election for supporting the constitutional challenge to that initiative statute. Doing the right thing sometimes has political costs.

My thing is that I think the courts have done a lot of twisting of the obvious over time and it has stymied freedom rather than furthering it. We have come very close to devolving into a krytocracy and that is a pretty nasty development.

I'm sure the southern segregationists agreed with your sentiments circa 1955.

Window_Seat
09-20-2010, 4:19 PM
Heads up gags/gals!

CRPA FOUNDATION: Parker Case Update / Injunction Sought to Stop AB 962 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=344291) (as started by CDMichel).

Another 2 weeks! :thumbsup:

Erik.

BigDogatPlay
09-20-2010, 4:24 PM
Your underlined comment shows an ignorance, that laws are constitutional until proven otherwise by a court.

I'll take on faith that your use of ignorance is merely a statement of opinion and not a self righteous pejorative.

The state is under no obligation to defend unconstitutional laws in court.

See Article III Section 3.5:

SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative
agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no
power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a
statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a
statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit
the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a
determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by
federal law or federal regulations.

So then your position is that an executive officer / agency of the state can pretty much whistle dixie if they like since they are not an administrative agency? Please show me where, as an executive officer, the Attorney General or the Governor can declare a law or constitutional amendment unconstitutional by fiat... as they did here through their words and actions. And your extract says that the agency may not declare. I don't see anything in that passage that says the may or may not defend.

Also, it wasn't enacted by the people of the state of California. It was enacted by the voters who bothered to show up to vote in 2008. Subjecting fundamental rights and equal protection that is owned by every person alive in the state to the whims of those who bother to show up is anathema. Gun owners in this state have been subject to the tyrrany of the voting majority.

Well, unfortunately, there is still that pesky concept of majority rules in an election even as hard as some seem so bent to prove otherwise. It's simple math, really...they who win elections get to make the rules. If only five people show up to vote in a state of 35 million, and when the count is done it's three to two in favor of whatever it is, then they win.

But then that is why we have courts isn't it? So elections don't really mean what they say.

Having said that, gun owners in this state have been subjected to a systematic tyranny of a Legislature lawfully elected by a majority of voters who actually show up. Because of that we get the kind of government we deserve. I would submit that the gay community suffered no such governmental tyranny and trying to frame this as a civil rights nexus is, IMO, comparing apples to oranges and just a wee bit narrow on the vision thing. After all, RKBA has been held to be a fundamental right specifically protected under the Constitution of the United States. At that level, perhaps you could point me to the appropriate passage in that document which enumerates a fundamental right to marry?

They are under no obligation to defend a statute, ethical or otherwise, or to appeal a negative decision. Jerry Brown made the right call here, not just because it's the right thing to do, but more important to fiscal conservatives, to save the state millions of dollars attorney fees for something it could not win. Now, the Defendant-Intervenors are on the hook rather than the state. Now that is being thrifty with funds.

And I, respectfully, disagree with that conclusion and I believe that it is something that at it's core is fundamentally wrong with the entire exercise. Not just gays wanting to marry, either. Jerry Brown made the right call politically. End of story.

While it may surprise you that I actually was against Prop 8, just as I was for 187. I am not arguing from the point of Prop 8 being a good thing. I am merely pointing out in both cases the people of the State of California... those pesky few who actually show and vote anyway took it up the duke without benefit of representation before the bar because it didn't suit someone's political agenda.

That is the real tyranny...

Purple K
11-04-2010, 7:26 AM
Two Weeks???

Window_Seat
11-04-2010, 9:51 AM
Two Weeks???

Go eat a sandwich and take a nap... :laugh:

Erik.

hoffmang
11-04-2010, 5:31 PM
Our opposition to the motion to dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.211385/gov.uscourts.caed.211385.14.0.pdf) was filed today. It has one very interesting tidbit in it that I will be creating a separate thread about.

-Gene

383green
11-04-2010, 5:34 PM
Our opposition to the motion to dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.211385/gov.uscourts.caed.211385.14.0.pdf) was filed today.

The link isn't working for me at the moment: "We’re sorry, the page you have requested is not available".