PDA

View Full Version : The SB23 DA Case


hoffmang
05-13-2006, 12:05 AM
I've been doing a little looking and have found a bit about the DA vs. DOJ case. It's entitled Edward Hunt vs State of California and is sometimes called Hunt v. State of California or Hunt v. Lockyer.

On an earlier thread folks thought this was dead. It doesn't look like it is. Back on February 14, 2006 a trial was set for this case on January 24, 2007. Here is the docket (http://banweb.co.fresno.ca.us/plsql/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=01CECG03182&begin_date=&end_date=).

This case is in the Superior Court in Fresno (http://www.fresnosuperiorcourt.org/). This is the case where two of the 58 DA's sued the DOJ saying that either SB23 was unconstitutionally vague or DOJ wasn't performing its rule making function correctly. Hunt's letter (http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Articles/76855_Fresno_DA_Hunt_Letter.PDF) about the case from back in 2001 has been posted before, but it explains the case well.

Looking at the docket, I got a chuckle from the fact that the DOJ moved to have the venue changed to Sacramento and lost. Chuck Michel is attorney for the Plaintiffs.

Anybody have any PDFs of the complaints or willing to wonder down to the court and get copies of the filings? PM me if you're willing to grab copies of the paperwork as I can post them in PDF if you mail them to me.

SFV_Dealer
05-13-2006, 6:17 AM
Wow, this is interesting from Fresno County! I thought this old case had been forgotten, but it's nice to see the DA's don't agree with SB23...

So we'll have to wait and see in January 2007 for any resolution ??

I liked the recent "mail returned" court notation for the DOJ defense attorney they couldn't find...

Ford8N
05-13-2006, 6:53 AM
It would be fun to be in the court room and watch. Sort of like a Court TV for Calguns.:D

kenc9
05-13-2006, 8:35 AM
Wow, this is interesting from Fresno County! I thought this old case had been forgotten, but it's nice to see the DA's don't agree with SB23...

So we'll have to wait and see in January 2007 for any resolution ??

I liked the recent "mail returned" court notation for the DOJ defense attorney they couldn't find...

I agree, so they are trying to get their act together for more than just us AR/AK owners.

This thing is set for a Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 12/7/06 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 73. kl preceding its trial readyness and following the trial. Which is if you notice is right after the new A.G. takes over, Trial Readiness set for 1/19/07 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept 73.

Unless there is something we don't know about this...how this trial goes so goes our laws or listing on our AK/AR rifles.

-ken

DSA_FAL
06-08-2006, 9:35 PM
I hope someone in the Fresno area watches this trial and reports back on it in January. I looked up the Judge, Stephen j Kane. It appears that he's Republican but I couldn't find out much else. According to the Fresno Bee (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:88Xe0sq_NOwJ:www.fresnobee.com/local/story/12131203p-12879691c.html+Judge+Stephen+J+Kane&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=safari) he has appointed to the state appeals court. I wonder when this takes effect and if he will still preside over this trial. If he won't I wonder who will replace him.

thmpr
06-08-2006, 9:48 PM
Is this a public hearing? If so, we should all attend!!!!! :D

rodgster
06-08-2006, 10:15 PM
Is this a public hearing? If so, we should all attend!!!!! :D

Aren't all court proceedings public unless specifically closed by the judge?

thmpr
06-08-2006, 10:32 PM
Yes they are. I have not researched this particular case if it is public or closed.

mikehaas
06-09-2006, 8:02 AM
This is NRA's lawsuit against SB 23. I'm a bit surprised to see so few here know about it, since it is how NRA has been continuing the fight against Perata's BS and many here are very knowledgable.

Of course, for those that continually bash NRA's efforts, no surprise if they didn't know about it. One has to be pretty uninformed to bash NRA in this state.

Mike

mikehaas
06-09-2006, 8:49 AM
http://calgunlaws.com/article-453.html

(I'm webmaster there too. Hey, I get around. :-)

Mike

DSA_FAL
06-09-2006, 8:51 AM
This is NRA's lawsuit against SB 23. I'm a bit surprised to see so few here know about it, since it is how NRA has been continuing the fight against Perata's BS and many here are very knowledgable.

Of course, for those that continually bash NRA's efforts, no surprise if they didn't know about it. One has to be pretty uninformed to bash NRA in this state.

Mike

Part of the issue is that this lawsuit was almost never mentioned during the whole debate on what the NRA is doing on the whole AW ban and OLL situation. I myself only recently became aware of this suit. I'm sure if it was better known like the NRA Prop H lawsuit, more people would have given the NRA credit and not have been as critical. For the life of me I don't understand why the NRA (and their supporters) almost never mention it since it's a bigger issue than even the Prop H lawsuit in that this will potentially affect the whole state. Also, from what I understand of it it is our best hope for overturning SB23.

(Full disclosure: I'm an NRA member)

PIRATE14
06-09-2006, 10:38 AM
Well it could be over turned quite easily...........

Look at how much effort of BS that the DOJ had to put in the regs to clear things up over the pistol grip.....

Now they are tryin to do the same thing w/ "fixed"......

Hopefully it'll get overturned and we've added a bunch more fuel for a toss out but it's still far from over.:eek:

hoffmang
06-09-2006, 11:30 AM
Mike,

Trying to do my part to support you and all of us on the work to take things back.

Having the DOJ be this dumb in paper form creates a hell of a stack of evidence to support this case all.

NoTime2Shoot
06-09-2006, 11:31 AM
I'm a bit surprised to see so few here know about it, since it is how NRA has been continuing the fight against Perata's BS and many here are very knowledgable.



I read it on CG Laws quite a while ago. It has been discussed in several threads now. It's really nice of them to keep putting off the case. We can assume Lightbeer REALLY doesn't want to deal with it, eh?

xenophobe
06-09-2006, 12:38 PM
This is NRA's lawsuit against SB 23.

Umm... I thought this was the Fresno County DA's Office suit against the DOJ.

:rolleyes:

So the NRA is actually paying the DA's office to get this done? *shrug*

blacklisted
06-09-2006, 1:38 PM
Umm... I thought this was the Fresno County DA's Office suit against the DOJ.

:rolleyes:

So the NRA is actually paying the DA's office to get this done? *shrug*

I read somewhere that the NRA lawyer is involved in it somehow...but I never heard that ti was the NRA's lawsuit.

xenophobe
06-09-2006, 2:02 PM
Well, yeah, I'm sure there is some NRA involvement past an Amicus Curiae, but claiming it as NRA's personal lawsuit is stretching the truth somewhat.

Talkin2u2
06-11-2006, 9:03 AM
Well, yeah, I'm sure there is some NRA involvement past an Amicus Curiae, but claiming it as NRA's personal lawsuit is stretching the truth somewhat.

It doesn't matter how much you try to spin this into your web of anti-NRA bias/deception, THIS IS THE NRA'S LAWSUIT! That's a FACT!

You should get over it. But I doubt that will ever happen. Oh well. It really doesn't matter now, as most people here know that you will attack NRA for everything they do to protect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.

Ricki Stevens

glen avon
06-11-2006, 12:27 PM
several of the issues in the letter are now moot.

glen avon
06-11-2006, 12:38 PM
THIS IS THE NRA'S LAWSUIT! That's a FACT!

they are not listed as a party.

hoffmang
06-11-2006, 9:32 PM
The NRA is certainly assisting through Chuck Michel who is plaintiff counsel.

This is what the NRA said about this in 2003:
http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml

Anybody live in Fresno and willing to go in and pick up copies of the file If I paid the court for them?

xenophobe
06-11-2006, 11:45 PM
It doesn't matter how much you try to spin this into your web of anti-NRA bias/deception, THIS IS THE NRA'S LAWSUIT! That's a FACT!

You should get over it. But I doubt that will ever happen. Oh well. It really doesn't matter now, as most people here know that you will attack NRA for everything they do to protect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.

Ricki Stevens

lol... could you be any more misguided or confused?

ghettoshecky
06-12-2006, 10:01 AM
well listening to glen and xeno, I guess this isn't an NRA lawsuit. If they are not listed as a party and it's "Hunt vs. DOJ" then I'm sure it's not NRA. Also you gotta give credit to xeno and glen, from what I've read from xeno and glen they're pretty informed about firearms and the laws pertaining to them.

glen avon
06-12-2006, 11:21 AM
Thanks!!

I try. the better our information, the better we do.

bwiese
06-12-2006, 11:29 AM
From external appearances, this is an "inside baseball" suit between a local DA and the AG. While rare, I do believe this has happened before (in other regulatory fields).

It is not an NRA suit whatsoever. NRA may participate on an amicus basis - but they may want to actually stay away so this isn't perceived in court as a gun rights issue, but a technical regulatory issue and how well the regulations were crafted, how descriptive they are, etc.

I do not think this suit will result in SB23/RR being thrown out completely, unfortunately. If successful, it may just force DOJ to properly describe all terms used in the statutes (as opposed to just some of them), along with how they interrelate.

xenophobe
06-12-2006, 6:57 PM
Thanks!!

I try. the better our information, the better we do.

+1

I have to add, if I'm not sure I'm in the right, or if I don't think I'm well informed on a particular subject. I sit and read. I may interject opinion at some point, but I will not take a factual stance unless I feel that I know what I'm talking about.

I do believe that some of the grounds set by Harrott may very well play into the final outcome of this case. SB23 may very well be in jeopardy because of this, combined with the content of the complaint filed by Edward Hunt, with the outcome ruled in a relatively conservative court. I won't hold my breath, but I will keep high hopes...

mikehaas
06-12-2006, 9:28 PM
Umm... I thought this was the Fresno County DA's Office suit against the DOJ.

:rolleyes:

So the NRA is actually paying the DA's office to get this done? *shrug*
No. It's NRA's case bacause they identified the weakness in the law, designed the lawsuit, sought a plaintiff, is paying for the suit... none of it would be happening without NRA - I call that NRA's lawsuit. Chuck Michel is NRA's attorney in this state, BTW.

NRA is the only group with the attorney and LEO connections to be able to put this together and put it together right.

Mike

glen avon
06-12-2006, 10:44 PM
...It's NRA's case bacause they identified the weakness in the law, designed the lawsuit, sought a plaintiff, is paying for the suit...

where does that information come from?

artherd
06-12-2006, 10:54 PM
NRA is not listed as a plaintiff, but don't you think it is a bit of a concidence that counsel is Chuck Michel (the NRA's attorney in CA who just defeated Proposition H.) given especially that a DA could have represented himself as well, some sort of attorney for his district?

xenophobe
06-12-2006, 11:36 PM
where does that information come from?

+1

So now you're saying that the NRA is pulling the strings on the Fresno DA's Office....

I can believe a lot of things, but law enforcement spite for difficult laws do not originate with the NRA.

And you're also saying that Chuck Michel soley represents the NRA and does no firearms side-cases that aren't funded by the NRA?

And you're saying that the Fresno DA had no case until the NRA came along?

And you're saying that without the NRA, Edward Hunt wouldn't have even filed a case because he was approached by the NRA to file suit?


I would like to see anything to back any of this up.

glen avon
06-13-2006, 9:39 AM
NRA is not listed as a plaintiff, but don't you think it is a bit of a concidence that counsel is Chuck Michel (the NRA's attorney in CA who just defeated Proposition H.) given especially that a DA could have represented himself as well, some sort of attorney for his district?

I don't know if that's usual or unusual, either way.