PDA

View Full Version : NRA & CRPA FOUNDATION FILE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING FIREARM SALES “FEES”


sbrady@Michel&Associates
08-26-2011, 6:27 PM
August 26, 2011 – Attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA), California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation (CRPA Foundation), Herb Bauer’s Sporting Goods, and individual Fresno residents and firearm owners have filed a lawsuit challenging the “fees” the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) imposes on firearm purchasers. The lawsuit, Bauer v. Harris, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno), alleges that the excessive “fees” being charged by DOJ to purchase a gun create an unconstitutional infringement on the exercise of rights protected under the Second Amendment.

A copy of the complaint is viewable at www.calgunlaws.com

Over the years the fees imposed on firearms purchasers have gone up dramatically, despite the fact that technological advances have caused the cost of doing background checks on gun purchasers to go down. A multi-million dollar surplus has built up. But rather than reduce the fees, the state has instead sought to continually expand the programs that the money can be used for. The lawsuit alleges that the DOJ illegally uses the revenues from the mandatory “fees” for general law enforcement activities that are completely unrelated to the valid regulation of lawful firearm purchases, and that DOJ is illegally overcharging gun buyers. In doing so, DOJ places an unconstitutional precondition on the exercise of fundamental Second Amendment rights in California. Essentially, the state is unconstitutionally funding general police work unrelated to lawful firearm purchases off the backs of law abiding gun owners.

The lawsuit also alleges that DOJ’s imposition of the fees are not really “fees” at all under California law, but are actually disguised taxes that are invalid and unenforceable since they were not adopted by the Legislature by a 2/3rds vote. Plaintiffs are asking that the statutes authorizing the “taxes” be declared void.

The suit was prompted in part by pending Senate Bill 819 (Leno), which seeks to add yet another program that can be funded by the gun purchase fees to the already long list of programs being funded by fees imposed on gun buyers. Specifically, SB 819 would allow for funds from these “fees” to finance regulation of the “possession” of firearms, meaning prosecution of all gun possession crimes could be subsidized by law-abiding gun owners. If SB 819 becomes law, that would strengthen Plaintiffs’ lawsuit by making it even more obvious that the DROS “fees” violate the Second Amendment, and are actually illegal “taxes” under California law.

The lawsuit is being funded by the NRA / CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP). LAP is a joint venture between the Nation Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

To see a partial list of the Legal Action Project’s recent accomplishments, visicst www.crpafoundation.org To contribute to the NRA / CRPAF Legal Action Project (LAP) and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.crpafoundation.org or www.nraila.org. Please register at www.calgunlaws.com to receive updates on this and other litigation as it is made available.

Maltese Falcon
08-26-2011, 6:31 PM
Kudos to y'all. Go get them!

.

stix213
08-26-2011, 6:38 PM
:mnl:

G60
08-26-2011, 6:49 PM
Wow Herb Bauer!

Southwest Chuck
08-26-2011, 6:50 PM
Hallelujah !! :thumbsup:

safewaysecurity
08-26-2011, 6:51 PM
Awesome!

mag360
08-26-2011, 6:52 PM
fantastic news! Nice to see my hard earned dollars that I give to NRA and CRPA at work. Thank you very much!

goober
08-26-2011, 6:56 PM
Nice. Git 'em.

RRangel
08-26-2011, 6:59 PM
Outstanding news. A great way to take it to those who are penalizing citizens for daring to exercise their rights.

Cnynrat
08-26-2011, 7:03 PM
Love it!

2009_gunner
08-26-2011, 7:06 PM
Outstanding. The tax required to transfer a gun is ridiculous. It seems like this case could complement the Kwong (http://ia700608.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.377535/gov.uscourts.nysd.377535.docket.html) suit in NY. They charge $340 there.

stix213
08-26-2011, 7:07 PM
If DROS fees were found to be an illegal tax, would that mean they need to be refunded? Would they just stop charging new fees from then on? Or is this something specifically up to the judge to decide how to proceed?

Santa Cruz Armory
08-26-2011, 7:15 PM
This is FANTASTIC!

I hope they challenge the BOE requirement of CA FFLs to collect CA sales tax on out of state transfers. I think this is total BS!

HowardW56
08-26-2011, 7:19 PM
:D

Very good............

CitaDeL
08-26-2011, 7:28 PM
The lawsuit also alleges that DOJ’s imposition of the fees are not really “fees” at all under California law, but are actually disguised taxes that are invalid and unenforceable since they were not adopted by the Legislature by a 2/3rds vote. Plaintiffs are asking that the statutes authorizing the “taxes” be declared void.

Sweet... more of this. This strategy might be effective on the recycling 'fee' when you purchase televisions, laptops and monitors as well- unless that was actually called a tax and passed by 2/3rds vote...;)

ckprax
08-26-2011, 7:30 PM
Awesome! Great work. So do I get all of the money I paid into DROS back when we win?

monk
08-26-2011, 8:27 PM
Man, I can't imagine how much money this will cause the state to loose if it goes thru. I gotta say though, I'm happy this is finally happening.

PsychGuy274
08-26-2011, 8:42 PM
So if they really are found to be illegal fees then can I get reimbursed for all the guns I had to DROS while I lived in CA?

Caladain
08-26-2011, 8:54 PM
So if they really are found to be illegal fees then can I get reimbursed for all the guns I had to DROS while I lived in CA?

Probably not. The state would probably stop collecting, grudgingly, but it'll never *give* back money.

That's like asking the mob collection man for your money back..

TKM
08-26-2011, 9:17 PM
I feel like I may be a member of a class.

dctex99
08-26-2011, 9:21 PM
If they gave money back it would be like a "settlement", which is not being asked for...just STOP collecting of fees that are not spent wisely for gun safety or any related issues.; it would just make the collection of those fees null & void. They could still justify SOME fee; maybe closer 1 or 2 per cent of the transaction BEFORE state tax??

berto
08-26-2011, 9:57 PM
There goes the NRA not doing anything for Californians again.

eville
08-26-2011, 10:00 PM
two thumbs way up!

chiselchst
08-26-2011, 10:02 PM
Sweet, sweet, sweet!

Thanks CRPA & NRA! Here's comes a few more pesos! :D

ddestruel
08-26-2011, 10:03 PM
There goes the NRA not doing anything for Californians again.

those lazy guys over at the NRA just ignore CA you'd think they'd do something with all the money we send them but instead they treat us like mushrooms keep us in the dark and feed us full of ....


I've often wondered why we couldnt take the DROS system and fees on

Tripper
08-26-2011, 10:04 PM
Probably not. The state would probably stop collecting, grudgingly, but it'll never *give* back money.

That's like asking the mob collection man for your money back..


The mob guy is more dependable/trustworthy than CA DOJ & legislature

proclone1
08-26-2011, 10:28 PM
Well jokes on CA where I do my absolute best to always purchase on amazon and avoid p***ing my hard earned money into the CA sales tax coffers to buy illegals their chocolate milk at school.

Nor-Cal
08-26-2011, 10:38 PM
Great news!

dantodd
08-26-2011, 10:56 PM
They could still justify SOME fee; maybe closer 1 or 2 per cent of the transaction BEFORE state tax??

Unless it costs more to do a background check on a guy buying a $1000 gun than a check on the guy buying a $200 gun basing the fee on gun cost is illogical and probably illegal.

Database searches are so cheap. At $.03 per look up or some such even checking 30 criminal/civil databases should be less than $1 fee for a background check.

FullMetalJacket
08-26-2011, 11:44 PM
Oh, now you're hittin' 'em where it hurts...

...the revenue stream!

Connor P Price
08-27-2011, 12:04 AM
I feel like I may be a member of a class.

A class that may bring a certain action? It'd be funny to watch, hell I might even join in, but its not likely to go far since the fees would have been presumed to be lawful up until being struck down. I doubt we'd ever get a retroactive settlement. Even if we could, since the money has already been spent, the harm it would do to our state would be bad enough that it would hurt us as the class bringing the action anyway. That would basically cancel the effect out, the tax payers suing to collect and then paying for the damages as a result.

I've often wondered why we couldnt take the DROS system and fees on

Until recently they were charging us for a privilege, since McDonald they are charging us for a right.

Unless it costs more to do a background check on a guy buying a $1000 gun than a check on the guy buying a $200 gun basing the fee on gun cost is illogical and probably illegal.

Database searches are so cheap. At $.03 per look up or some such even checking 30 criminal/civil databases should be less than $1 fee for a background check.

THIS! Think about the bandwidth that we all use up viewing live video streams, downloading photos, surfing forums, sending emails, etc. Even if your not a technologically savvy person, you've got a decent understanding that a simple text based query like a background check doesn't cost much at all.

spgripside
08-27-2011, 1:09 AM
Very nice.

tpuig
08-27-2011, 2:08 AM
Very nice. Don't you guys ever sleep?

Joe
08-27-2011, 2:09 AM
Love it.

mrrsquared79
08-27-2011, 3:16 AM
What I want to know is why can every other state make a phone call for the background check and be done in less than 5 minutes?

What does CA have making this process unable to work?

Merc1138
08-27-2011, 4:10 AM
What I want to know is why can every other state make a phone call for the background check and be done in less than 5 minutes?

What does CA have making this process unable to work?

Umm, the DROS fee and 10 day wait. There is nothing stopping FFL's in CA from being able to do the same thing as every other state, except stupid CA laws and bureaucratic nonsense.

Rahl
08-27-2011, 5:06 AM
Awesome!

Anchors
08-27-2011, 6:20 AM
OMG! As a connoisseur of "Saturday Night Special"/"Junk Guns", this is music to my ears.

When the DROS fees are worth more than the gun is to most people, it becomes pretty pricey to get them.
The handgun roster makes it hard enough!

Thanks for tackling this. If you guys win this, I am willing to say it will be the biggest win yet for California gun owners. Easily.

Also, it might create some more nice case law on fees=illegal taxes. Which, as a fiscal conservative, I also appreciate.
Two birds with one stone in my opinion!

downfall
08-27-2011, 7:14 AM
Outstanding!, my only question is, how long is this going to take? some of us, whom are subjects in the DPRK, are not young anymore. I would like to see some wins in these cases before I expire and the DPRK confiscates most of my estate in taxes.

Kharn
08-27-2011, 7:24 AM
Interesting.
MD charges $10 to process the paperwork for handguns and black rifles, but many dealers will add $5-10 for their own benefit. I put the gun down and walk out as soon as they say "Plus $20 for the state fee."

trashman
08-27-2011, 7:26 AM
Hit 'em where it hurts :)

Andy Taylor
08-27-2011, 7:50 AM
AWESOME! :cool2:

BigDogatPlay
08-27-2011, 8:05 AM
Hurrah for NRA / CRPA for taking this on. The over charge on DROS is well known. Rolling back the fee even more would be fine and dandy for me as a settlement.




I hope they challenge the BOE requirement of CA FFLs to collect CA sales tax on out of state transfers. I think this is total BS!

The law around out of state sales and use taxes in lieu of sales tax has been on the books since the 1930's. I doubt it's going anywhere.

Well jokes on CA where I do my absolute best to always purchase on amazon and avoid p***ing my hard earned money into the CA sales tax coffers to buy illegals their chocolate milk at school.

And... the joke may be on you / all of us in the end. Under use tax law you are already supposed to be sending the BOE a check for the offsetting taxes that you avoid by using products purchased out of state with no sales tax collected. The BOE, after bumbling around being the bureaucratic monster that it is, is massively stepping up enforcement on use tax collection right now as, like you, almost no one pays them. They are start to ruthlessly go after businesses now and I figure it's only a matter of time before they get down to individual on line shoppers, especially since Amazon is so publicly sticking it's thumb in California's eye over sales tax collection.

Background here. (http://www.taxabletalk.com/2010/02/16/the-use-tax-mess-in-california/)

Window_Seat
08-27-2011, 8:38 AM
Archive Docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.228128/gov.uscourts.caed.228128.docket.html)

Recap Docket (http://archive.recapthelaw.org/caed/228128/) (not uploaded as of yet)

Erik.

putput
08-27-2011, 8:39 AM
Thank you so much. Best of Luck!

Spirit 1
08-27-2011, 8:44 AM
Excellent work! The whole thing is the typical shell game fraud: the one with the pea under walnut shells, not .50BMG.

Who searches the databases? Government employees search, whose time is already exorbitantly paid for.

Who maintains any database searched? Government employees, whose time is already paid for.

Where are the databases? On Government computers that taxpayers already paid for.

How was searchable database info collected? By government employees recording information on criminal events related to citizens, per their normal government duties, all of which has already been paid for with citizen's taxes.

How long should it take for a skilled person to search all databases in the computer age? Maybe 3 minutes per transaction, because it's all computerized & electronic, and all neatly located in central information repositories.

Absolutely no doubt it's a tax on a tax on a tax repeat ad infinitum. Seems to me it's a criminally fraudulent act of misrepresentation to collect these various 'fees' when the entire 'system' of it has been created solely within government agencies and has a net zero actual 'cost' involved with performing the processes. The processes and entire system have ALREADY been paid for!

Just another example of government creating an obfuscation and confounding within their convoluted system, all invented for the sake of stripping honest, law abiding citizens of yet more of their hard earned incomes in the name of non-existent government 'expenses', while incidentally controverting and abridging the Constitutional Right to Keep & Bear Arms.

mrrsquared79
08-27-2011, 11:03 AM
Umm, the DROS fee and 10 day wait. There is nothing stopping FFL's in CA from being able to do the same thing as every other state, except stupid CA laws and bureaucratic nonsense.

Yeah I got the DROS/10 day wait as does every other gun owner living in CA, why cant we demonstrate(litigate) this is overly burdening the right since every other state can complete this in five minutes. Even more so if you already own a truckload of firearms including handguns.

Santa Cruz Armory
08-27-2011, 11:30 AM
This is FANTASTIC!

I hope they challenge the BOE requirement of CA FFLs to collect CA sales tax on out of state transfers. I think this is total BS!




The law around out of state sales and use taxes in lieu of sales tax has been on the books since the 1930's. I doubt it's going anywhere.



And... the joke may be on you / all of us in the end. Under use tax law you are already supposed to be sending the BOE a check for the offsetting taxes that you avoid by using products purchased out of state with no sales tax collected. The BOE, after bumbling around being the bureaucratic monster that it is, is massively stepping up enforcement on use tax collection right now as, like you, almost no one pays them. They are start to ruthlessly go after businesses now and I figure it's only a matter of time before they get down to individual on line shoppers, especially since Amazon is so publicly sticking it's thumb in California's eye over sales tax collection.



I completely understand the use tax issue. I just don't think it's our responsibility as dealers to collect tax on a sale WE didn't make. Let the use tax be between the state and end user. The BOE is using us as enforcers for a hole in their system. :mad:

dhyayi
08-27-2011, 11:32 AM
love it very much.
great news

http://bytery.info/nossl/BP/J.gif

kmca
08-27-2011, 12:14 PM
Unless it costs more to do a background check on a guy buying a $1000 gun than a check on the guy buying a $200 gun basing the fee on gun cost is illogical and probably illegal.

Database searches are so cheap. At $.03 per look up or some such even checking 30 criminal/civil databases should be less than $1 fee for a background check.

The background check fee is the same, no matter what the firearm costs :)

Wrangler John
08-27-2011, 12:20 PM
I had a suspicion that the entire DROS and waiting period was less about reality than California maintaining control of the process. If they adopted the same instant checks as those other states, they would relinquish the need for staff positions and infrastructure to support the process. Less functions and responsibilities = budget reductions.

By having DOJ personnel make the checks and place a hold on the transfer, they insure their control over firearms sales and have a means to ultimately use price controls, i.e "sin" taxes. They would claim the 10 day wait ensures a more accurate denial of firearms to prohibited persons by extending the database search. Yet every police agent in the state has access to criminal records, on the spot and within seconds, from a patrol car computer or by radio. There seems to be no technological bar to dealers being able to make instant background checks at the POS. Eventually, as the system becomes more advanced, that process could include a fingerprint or thumb print search to avoid false positives.

If the DROS "fees" are done away with or greatly reduced, this may provide impetus to establish the IBC in California, although there will always be resistance from the Legislature. Not to mention California's ability to purchase outdated or flawed software, didn't the DMV purchase a $40 million system that didn't work a few years back?

dantodd
08-27-2011, 12:55 PM
The background check fee is the same, no matter what the firearm costs :)

Yes, I know. Read the post to which I was replying.

kmca
08-27-2011, 1:07 PM
Yes, I know. Read the post to which I was replying.

Sorry, I also misunderstood the original :(

dantodd
08-27-2011, 1:57 PM
Sorry, I also misunderstood the original :(

No problem, I tend to use rhetorical devices which admittedly can lead to such mistakes fairly easily.

mag360
08-27-2011, 4:17 PM
then maybe no more 10day wait. I can hope. sometime soon? You can't restrict a right to a 10 day waiting period when the background check takes seconds.

hvengel
08-27-2011, 5:38 PM
... but its not likely to go far since the fees would have been presumed to be lawful up until being struck down. I doubt we'd ever get a retroactive settlement. Even if we could, since the money has already been spent, the harm it would do to our state would be bad enough that it would hurt us as the class bringing the action anyway. That would basically cancel the effect out, the tax payers suing to collect and then paying for the damages as a result....

California used to have a pollution fee when registering cars that were brought in from other states. I think this was around $300. The fee/tax was over turned as a violation of the interstate commerce clause (IE. is was ruled unconstitutional because it restrained trade among the states) and they were ordered to refund ALL of the fees. A friend of mine got his refund about 8 years after he had paid the fee. So the courts have already required California to do retroactive tax/fee refunds when the tax/fee in question was illegal.

dantodd
08-27-2011, 6:02 PM
then maybe no more 10day wait. I can hope. sometime soon? You can't restrict a right to a 10 day waiting period when the background check takes seconds.

The waiting period is probably unconstitutional but it may take a while to address. It is possible that thenstate will claim an interest in preventing suicidecor "heat of passion" crimes but that only applies if you do not have access to another firearm.

G-forceJunkie
08-27-2011, 7:16 PM
The first reason for the wait was to do the background check. When computers made it nearly instantaneous, they changed their tune to "cool down period." As mentioned, that is just as much of a BS reason, when the same 30 second computerized background check could also inform them I already have a couple dozen rifles and pistols registered to me. The waiting period is probably unconstitutional but it may take a while to address. It is possible that thenstate will claim an interest in preventing suicidecor "heat of passion" crimes but that only applies if you do not have access to another firearm.

Meplat
08-27-2011, 7:35 PM
Wow Herb Bauer!

I've been shopping there sence it was a real 'gun shop' down on the P st. bend.

wildhawker
08-28-2011, 1:20 AM
Here is the complaint.

112258

ETA: While looking through the complaint, it dawned on me why this all sounded eerily familiar (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=342783)...

-Brandon

2Bear
08-28-2011, 1:51 AM
So if they really are found to be illegal fees then can I get reimbursed for all the guns I had to DROS while I lived in CA?

CLASS ACTION! Call Cabraser!!! She can certify any class...

Munk
08-28-2011, 2:43 AM
Wow. This had always been an irritation to me, but I didn't even think it was in the near future from the legal folks. The whole "taxes disguised as fees" thing has always pissed me off, especially when they make no secret of it.

As far as background checks, i've worked with private investigators in the past; these checks are dirt cheap WITHOUT discounts, WITHOUT bulk rates, and without insider access. At about 1$, the company selling the info is making money on simple checks. However, that's from an individual back-end source. One of the nice "packaged" background checks that pulls from multiple companies' info will cost about 5-12$ depending on payment plans, and that's pretty damn inclusive at that point (relatives, associates, crim record, court records both civil and criminal, aliases, SSN(s), address history, likely location, phone numbers past and present) Criminal records without the ancillary information is damn cheap when you have a bulk rate agreement going.

Unfortunately it's still a pain to find people sometimes, which is why PI's get paid considerably more to locate people. (I hated people with 7 SSNs and 12 name variations involving their 4 names, 2 of them middle names, being juggled between positions and spellings) I swear, 1 hit turned up 50+ entries for the same guy at the same address with the same phone and an insane array of variations on his name. (still found him... bastard)

Scarecrow Repair
08-28-2011, 6:12 AM
the same 30 second computerized background check could also inform them I already have a couple dozen rifles and pistols registered to me.

You have registered rifles? RAWs or just normal long arms?

You shouldn't be happy that they know how many you have.

It's also unnecessary. If the 10 day wait were waived for those who already have guns, all you'd need to do is bring one in. Or show your carry license. Wouldn't matter if you borrowed one from a friend to bring in; all you need to do is show you have access to a working firearm and the excuse for the waiting period vanishes.

taloft
08-28-2011, 7:00 AM
California used to have a pollution fee when registering cars that were brought in from other states. I think this was around $300. The fee/tax was over turned as a violation of the interstate commerce clause (IE. is was ruled unconstitutional because it restrained trade among the states) and they were ordered to refund ALL of the fees. A friend of mine got his refund about 8 years after he had paid the fee. So the courts have already required California to do retroactive tax/fee refunds when the tax/fee in question was illegal.This is exactly why they call it a use tax. A sales tax on an interstate sale would be a violation of the commerce clause. By calling it a use tax they bypass the issue.

Technically, they are not taxing you on the purchase. They are taxing you for the use, storage, and/or consumption of an item within the state. Yes, it is complete BS. It's just an interstate sales tax thinly veiled by playing semantic games.

I'd love to get back the grand or more but, I won't hold my breath.

dantodd
08-28-2011, 7:37 AM
ETA: While looking through the complaint, it dawned on me why this all sounded eerily familiar (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=342783)...


I hope this was just a joke and that Chuck based the suit on your work with your knowledge. I hate to think that the CRPA was involved in litigation based on the work of a number of board members without their knowledge.

Trailboss60
08-28-2011, 8:18 AM
The suit was prompted in part by pending Senate Bill 819 (Leno), which seeks to add yet another program that can be funded by the gun purchase fees to the already long list of programs being funded by fees imposed on gun buyers.


Political vampires...using their political power to redistribute the monies they suck from the wallets of people that they figure aren't part of their constituency.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=200306

Political thuggery....

Trailboss60
08-28-2011, 8:32 AM
What I want to know is why can every other state make a phone call for the background check and be done in less than 5 minutes?



Here in Az., no phone call is required if you possess a ccw permit, so the cost to the state is nil.


What does CA have making this process unable to work?

http://banbillboardblight.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/mark-leno1.jpg

wazdat
08-28-2011, 8:33 AM
I hope this was just a joke and that Chuck based the suit on your work with your knowledge. I hate to think that the CRPA was involved in litigation based on the work of a number of board members without their knowledge.

Oh, I suspect it was a coordinated attack with CGF scouting out the enemy positions before it was launched. :D

BTW after reading the brief I like that we hit them right between the eyes with the "fee is a tax, not approved by 2/3 majority".

Get some!

DeanW66
08-28-2011, 11:34 AM
:clap: :mnl:

As mentioned, that is just as much of a BS reason, when the same 30 second computerized background check could also inform them I already have a couple dozen rifles and pistols registered to me.

In theory no - remember there is no registration of long guns.

wildhawker
08-28-2011, 1:14 PM
Oh, I suspect it was a coordinated attack with CGF scouting out the enemy positions before it was launched. :D

BTW after reading the brief I like that we hit them right between the eyes with the "fee is a tax, not approved by 2/3 majority".

Get some!

I've never received even a phone call on this subject from anyone but CGF attorneys, CGF board members, and CGF volunteers.

-Brandon

Sutcliffe
08-28-2011, 2:06 PM
Hit 'em where it hurts :)

The days of waiting to see what the 'other' side is doing and reacting to their actions is over. They will have reason to fear an educated, organized, grassroots movement.

Blackhawk556
08-28-2011, 3:30 PM
Why did they use Herb?? They want to complain about excessive fees but have you called herb and asked how much they charge for FFl transfer fees?? Last time i asked they wanted $125!! Yeah they can charge what ever they want since it's not a state fee, but to turn around and complain the gov't is charging too much is just ridiculous on their part. Plus their over priced merchandise is crazy.

Flopper
08-28-2011, 6:11 PM
The waiting period is probably unconstitutional but it may take a while to address. It is possible that thenstate will claim an interest in preventing suicidecor "heat of passion" crimes but that only applies if you do not have access to another firearm weapon/cliff/rope/drugs/car/poison/etc.

Fixed it for you :D

Sounds like a slam dunk ruling of unconstitutionality to me, but IANAL.

dantodd
08-28-2011, 6:34 PM
I've never received even a phone call on this subject from anyone but CGF attorneys, CGF board members, and CGF volunteers.

-Brandon

That's really unfortunate. Obviously they knew of your efforts and to not even give you a heads up much less coordinate with you is mighty disrespectful of you and all the people who support CGF.

Tier One Arms
08-28-2011, 6:59 PM
This is excellent news, I'm very happy to read this. Great job NRA and CRPA

GW
08-28-2011, 9:03 PM
Outstanding!
Well done fellows.

truthseeker
08-28-2011, 9:30 PM
LOVE IT!!

Hope California wakes up and chooses to fix itself before they spend all of the taxpayers money on defending stupid laws/regulations.

Z28
08-29-2011, 12:45 AM
This is awesome news.

Connor P Price
08-29-2011, 12:59 AM
That's really unfortunate. Obviously they knew of your efforts and to not even give you a heads up much less coordinate with you is mighty disrespectful of you and all the people who support CGF.

+1000

As a non insider, but someone who pays plenty of attention I find this more than a bit strange. I'm hoping somebody can help me understand, but I recognize it might need to be kept a bit under wraps. There is significant overlap between CGF and CRPA. I know that one could act without the others approval, but it seems almost entirely impossible that one would be able to act on such a large issue without the others knowledge.

I continue to keep faith in both organizations and sincerely believe that they both have our best interest in mind, but the water is getting murky here.

freonr22
08-29-2011, 1:03 AM
Big Deal. you guys file a dozen lawsuits or so +-, get cases before courts on a national level, including Scotus, Get the RKBA incorporated, do away w/ the Ca aw ban. What do you want? a medal or something for making and helping others the make the largest difference in My children's Freedoms in the last 50 years?

My Sincerest appreciation to ALL Involved. REALLY.. Thank You for fighting EVIL

freonr22
08-29-2011, 1:05 AM
conner, i am maybe wrong, but i think are playing toungue and cheek. I too had to reread their posts and back links

wildhawker
08-29-2011, 1:07 AM
conner, i maybe wrong, but i think are playing toungue and cheek. I too had to reread their posts and back links

My comments are meant to be taken entirely on their face.

-Brandon

freonr22
08-29-2011, 1:14 AM
ooh! I am now seeing a clearer distinction of the different entities. sometimes, the different alphabets=same. nra, crpa, cgn, CGF. I understand. now. thats umm.. Something, to bring to someones attention. dam

2Bear
08-29-2011, 3:11 PM
My comments are meant to be taken entirely on their face.


And the silence is deafening...

DeathByDoubleDip
09-03-2011, 9:28 PM
Not trying to belittle the significance of this, but would it be possible for anyone to ballpark a potential timeline for how long this might take to occur, judging from previous NRA lawsuits? Several months? Years?

Just trying to figure out if I should postpone some near-future purchases.

Scarecrow Repair
09-03-2011, 11:15 PM
Not trying to belittle the significance of this, but would it be possible for anyone to ballpark a potential timeline for how long this might take to occur, judging from previous NRA lawsuits? Several months? Years?

Just trying to figure out if I should postpone some near-future purchases.

The change in DROS price is what, 1-2% of the purchase price of a typical firearm?

Librarian
09-03-2011, 11:20 PM
Not trying to belittle the significance of this, but would it be possible for anyone to ballpark a potential timeline for how long this might take to occur, judging from previous NRA lawsuits? Several months? Years?

Just trying to figure out if I should postpone some near-future purchases.

A while.

Eastern District is first level Federal Court. Pena v Cid was filed there April, 2009; granted, it was stalled by a court-ordered stay in Oct 2009, for Nordyke, but it has been there over 2 years. Call that a long-guess, 2+ years.

In contrast, Peruta v San Diego was filed in US District Court in Oct, 2009, and made it to 9th Circuit December of 2010. Call that a short-guess, 1+ years.

Same for 9th Circuit - between 1 and 2 years there, so someplace between 2 and 4 years for a case newly filed in US District Court to get out of US Circuit Court. If it goes to SCOTUS, add another year.

And SCOTUS might provide an opinion by Christmas that might accelerate, delay, or extinguish the case.

DeathByDoubleDip
09-04-2011, 1:32 AM
The change in DROS price is what, 1-2% of the purchase price of a typical firearm?

A while.

Eastern District is first level Federal Court. Pena v Cid was filed there April, 2009; granted, it was stalled by a court-ordered stay in Oct 2009, for Nordyke, but it has been there over 2 years. Call that a long-guess, 2+ years.

In contrast, Peruta v San Diego was filed in US District Court in Oct, 2009, and made it to 9th Circuit December of 2010. Call that a short-guess, 1+ years.

Same for 9th Circuit - between 1 and 2 years there, so someplace between 2 and 4 years for a case newly filed in US District Court to get out of US Circuit Court. If it goes to SCOTUS, add another year.

And SCOTUS might provide an opinion by Christmas that might accelerate, delay, or extinguish the case.

Aaaaaaaand off I go to get that Walther P1 from Turner's this week. :43:

chris12
12-08-2011, 11:23 AM
Any updates from the scheduling conference today?

Purple K
04-06-2012, 8:29 PM
Any news?

HowardW56
04-06-2012, 8:35 PM
Next Week..........


MINUTE ORDER: (***TEXT ONLY***) Initial Scheduling Conference set for 2/9/2012 at 11:00 AM is CONTINUED to 4/12/2012 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (MJS) before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. A Joint Scheduling Report carefully prepared shall be filed with the Court one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference, and shall be emailed to mjsorders@caed.uscourts.gov. (Yu, L) (Entered: 01/17/2012)

bandook
04-06-2012, 9:23 PM
The change in DROS price is what, 1-2% of the purchase price of a typical firearm?

Let's see... 1% of x is $25. Hence x is ... $2500.

I guess for a $2500 gun it doesn't matter. But if you're trying to pick up a Marlin .22 on sale for $129, you're looking at close to 20%.
On Jan 1, 2014, when long gun registration commences, that $80 Mosin Nagant will incur a PPT fee of $35. (that's almost 45%) .

mag360
04-06-2012, 9:51 PM
Let's see... 1% of x is $25. Hence x is ... $2500.

I guess for a $2500 gun it doesn't matter. But if you're trying to pick up a Marlin .22 on sale for $129, you're looking at close to 20%.
On Jan 1, 2014, when long gun registration commences, that $80 Mosin Nagant will incur a PPT fee of $35. (that's almost 45%) .

not worth arguing, the percentage cost of the sale isn't what matters.

All that matters is the fee is so much above and beyond the justified cost of the service (of background check), thereby creating a tax on buying a gun.

Purple K
04-06-2012, 10:27 PM
Next Week..........


MINUTE ORDER: (***TEXT ONLY***) Initial Scheduling Conference set for 2/9/2012 at 11:00 AM is CONTINUED to 4/12/2012 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (MJS) before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. A Joint Scheduling Report carefully prepared shall be filed with the Court one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference, and shall be emailed to mjsorders@caed.uscourts.gov. (Yu, L) (Entered: 01/17/2012)

Thanks, I wasn't sure if the 5-25-12 hearing was in addition to 4-12-12 or instead of.

ewarmour
04-06-2012, 10:29 PM
Right on. I'd love to see any win for Ca gun owners.

CapS
04-07-2012, 11:17 PM
There goes the NRA not doing anything for Californians again.

Beat me to it!

This is one more reason to sign up, unless you're just too broke, in which case
let me know and I'll front you the $35.

Cap :oji:

johnny1290
04-08-2012, 4:34 PM
How exciting!

I bought maybe 8 firearms last year, that's $200 in background check fees that really only cost 10 or $20 combined!

Besides, now that they can use that 'extra' money earned from them for the general fund (or whatever..don't quote me on this but I thought I read that ), those fees are only going to go up!

Incrementalism, it's how they steal everything.

Thank you CalGuns and NRA!

jloffermann
04-08-2012, 4:41 PM
so thankful finaly took the leap to join the NRA. Im new to them is there anyway I can help? Im not a resident but stationed here so might as well try to help my fellow ppl in California!


im bering serious what could I do or do I just pray?

Purple K
06-25-2012, 1:15 AM
Any word on how Friday's hearing went?

HowardW56
06-25-2012, 7:55 AM
Any word on how Friday's hearing went?

05/15/201221 MINUTE ORDER: (***TEXT ONLY***) 14 (https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/doc1/03305771798) Motion to Stay set for June 22, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6 (MJS) before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng is CONTINUED to July 6, 2012 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 (MJS) before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. Initial Scheduling Conference set for June 28, 2012 in Courtroom 6 (MJS) before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng is CONTINUED to August 9, 2012 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (MJS) before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. (Yu, L) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

06/06/201222 (https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_doc.pl?caseid=228128&de_seq_num=78&dm_id=5494561&doc_num=22&pdf_header=1) WITHDRAWAL of 14 (https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/doc1/03305771798) MOTION to STAY by Kamala D. Harris, Stephen Lindley. (Smith, Susan) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/07/201223 MINUTE ORDER: (***TEXT ONLY***)On June 6, Defendant filed a 22 (https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/doc1/03315957926) Withdrawal of Motion to Stay. The Motion Hearing set for July 6, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng is VACATED. The Initial Scheduling Conference set for August 9, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. before Magsitrate Judge Michael J. Seng shall proceed as previously ordered. (Yu, L) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

monk
11-09-2012, 9:22 PM
Update:

2012-07-06 24 0 JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT by Leland Adley, Barry Bauer, California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation, Nicole Ferry, Jeffrey Hacker, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, Inc., National Rifle Association of America, Inc., Stephen Warkentin. (Michel, Carl) (Entered: 07/06/2012)

2012-07-24 25 0 NOTICE of Change of Assignment of Counsel Within Attorney General's Office by Kamala D. Harris, Stephen Lindley. (Smith, Susan) (Entered: 07/24/2012)

2012-08-07 26 0 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only): The Initial Scheduling Conference set for August 9, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. shall be held in Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng's Yosemite Chambers. The parties are directed to appear telephonically by making reservations through CourtCall at 866-582-6878. Please send confirmations to the courtroom deputy at lyu@caed.uscourts.gov. (Arellano, S.) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

2012-08-09 27 0 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 8/9/2012 in Chambers. Plaintiffs Counsel Sean Brady present. Defendants Counsel Anthony Hakl present. Court Reporter/CD Number: Held in Chambers, off the record. (Yu, L) (Entered: 08/10/2012)

2012-08-10 28 0 SCHEDULING ORDER :Initial Disclosures: 07/11/2012, Discovery Deadlines: Non-Expert: 2/27/2013. Expert: 6/27/2013. Motion Deadlines: Non-Dispositive Motions filed by 6/27/2013. Dispositive Motions filed by 8/16/2013, Pretrial Conference 11/14/2013 at 08:15 AM in Courtroom 4 (LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Jury Trial 1/28/2014 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 08/10/2012. (Yu, L) (Entered: 08/13/2012)


Looks like we'll be waiting until at least 2014 for trial to start.

sunborder
11-10-2012, 4:00 PM
I would like to see some wins in these cases before I expire and the DPRK confiscates most of my estate in taxes.

Unless your estate is worth over $1,000,000 there won't be any taxes. Even if there are taxes on the part that's over a million, it will hardly be "most."

Now, that may very well change in the near future.

In any case, I'd like to see the DROS fee be something realistic like $1, or so. And the sooner the better.

Roland Deschain
11-10-2012, 6:21 PM
Unless your estate is worth over $1,000,000 there won't be any taxes. Even if there are taxes on the part that's over a million, it will hardly be "most."

Now, that may very well change in the near future.

In any case, I'd like to see the DROS fee be something realistic like $1, or so. And the sooner the better.

Haven't paid attention to the rest of the thread but came across this post and wanted to point out that $1,000,000 isn't really that much when you start factoring in a house and life insurance. That's all, thread can resume :D

AVS
11-11-2012, 11:59 AM
Unless your estate is worth over $1,000,000 there won't be any taxes. Even if there are taxes on the part that's over a million, it will hardly be "most."

Now, that may very well change in the near future.

In any case, I'd like to see the DROS fee be something realistic like $1, or so. And the sooner the better.

Yeah, uh... this is CA. A $1 million estate isn't as tough to reach here in a lifetime as it is in a lot of other states... especially if you're a business owner.

$1 Million in your wallet isn't the same as a $1 Million estate. Own your hom and your own business? That alone could put you over.

FoxTrot87
11-11-2012, 1:04 PM
I'm not to keen on what would stop the new "Super Majority" from simply ammending it with a bill approving it as a "tax".

Could that open the door to them trying to price guns out of the market?

warbird
11-11-2012, 2:39 PM
If this lawsuit is successful then hopefully it can be expanded to go after other state fees and service charges Californians pay for. The NRA may become responsible for reversing a lot of "fees" in California well beyond just guns to benefit all californians

FoxTrot87
11-11-2012, 3:00 PM
But they could say,

"Prop 14: 17% Sales Tax on the sale of all firearms. Increased Tax will eliminate current fee's while providing surpluses to California Schools."

I don't know any sheep that wouldn't disagree with it... because I'm pretty sure we just reserved $30 billion for their pensions.