Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   Why havent we done a class action (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=693155)

BlooDSMeaR 01-31-2013 2:45 PM

Why havent we done a class action
 
As the title said , Why hasn't the gun community gotten together, and done a monetary class action law suit "the people vrs the great state of CA"? It would be based as a huge group getting their rights trampled on with all the fire arms laws?

unusedusername 01-31-2013 2:52 PM

Umm, because we are trying to overturn laws, not get money?

Getting money of of the state would take the same amount of work as just getting the law overturned.

Which you you rather have: "shall issue" carry liscenses or a voucher for $15?

donny douchebag 01-31-2013 3:19 PM

:facepalm:

rootuser 01-31-2013 3:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlooDSMeaR (Post 10382061)
As the title said , Why hasn't the gun community gotten together, and done a monetary class action law suit "the people vrs the great state of CA"? It would be based as a huge group getting their rights trampled on with all the fire arms laws?

Keep spit-balling. Ideas are always welcome. This one won't work for so many reasons it's not possible to list them all, but keep at it, get involved and most of all VOTE, VOTE, VOTE (local and state elections are very important, not only national ones).

Born To Glock 01-31-2013 4:05 PM

A class action against the State of California seems wildly far-fetched.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me a more reasonable class action suit would be against counties like Los Angeles County which charge a $10 non-refundable fee to process your CCW application. Since it seems virtually impossible to get a CCW in Los Angeles County, an argument could be made that LA County is defrauding applicants of their $10 fee, with no intention of actually issuing a CCW.

What would be the end result of this? Everyone gets $10 back, minus legal fees, which means you probably net about $3-4/person. Maybe you force the county to process and deny CCWs without charging a fee. I don't know if you could hope to impact their policy though.

But like I said, I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt the above has much merit.

Noble Cause 01-31-2013 5:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rootuser (Post 10382529)
Keep spit-balling. Ideas are always welcome. This one won't work for so many reasons it's not possible to list them all, but keep at it, get involved and most of all VOTE, VOTE, VOTE (local and state elections are very important, not only national ones).

^^^ This.

You get an "A" for effort, even though this particular idea
has problems.

When you get an idea, do a search to verify that it is a valid
idea... then if you think you've got one, go ahead and post.

Be prepared for a lot of negative comments, take them in stride
and adjust your idea when you read valid criticism.

One never knows when one persons idea can lead another person
to come up with an even Better Idea.

Noble

curtisfong 01-31-2013 5:17 PM

I'll bite. To add on to the other things posted:

Class action lawsuits are purely punitive in nature. They do not make their plaintiffs whole, nor do they seek to fix bad laws.

The state of CA is impervious to punitive (monetary) damages. They don't care how much anything costs.

zuchaka 01-31-2013 5:21 PM

Any chance we could use the heller case as president to try and overturn that hastily put together new york ban ?

I'm not a legal expert so just an idea, seems that the new york law has so many issues with it, that its probably a good law to try and take down, possibly make it a model for the rest of the country. Might wanna show that violence in general has been on the decline for awhile in California and since the dems took office gun sales are way up.

Just some thoughts

vector16 01-31-2013 5:45 PM

If you were to file a class action LS., the CA state gov would just throw it to the people and say "this is what the people of the state wanted" It is very difficult to sue a goverment and its policies that were voted on by the people.
that being said, Jerry Brown did not put the open carry bill up for a vote, nor did he put any of the other laws he mandated up for a vote. The only bill that he ever had the citizens of CA vote on was prop 30 which funnels money thru schools to support the prison system.

If you wre going to file this sort of law suite it would have to be against Edmud Jerry Brown himself. This is not a bad idea. After all this non-sense is unfolded in DC and they figure out what is constitutional and what is not, like the magazine capacity, then we will have a leg to stand on. Yesterday they cam to a conclusion thaty limiting the capacity of a magazine was unconstitutional because the police need to have that many rounds in teir firearms to protect themselves and the people of this country agains criminals and the people that wish to do this country harm.
Som bills are being introduced to the CA state senate like as follows

SB 53, introduced by "F" rated state Senator Kevin de León, would require ammunition purchasers to obtain a permit and pay an annual fee (tax). This bill will also ban online and mail order sales of all ammunition, and require registration and thumbprinting for all ammunition purchases.

SB 47 , introduced by "F" rated state Senator Leland Yee, would expand the prohibitions on the sale and possession of “assault weapons” to include hundred of firearms currently lawful for sale in California.

SB 108 , also introduced by state Senator Yee, would require a firearm to be placed in a locked container or otherwise be disassembled each time the owner leaves his or her property.

AJR 5, introduced by "F" rated state Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, would urge the President and Congress to support and pass Senator Feinstein’s proposed legislation prohibiting the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of assault weapons, and large-capacity magazines.

HR 1, introduced by "F" rated state Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, would be a standing rule of the Assembly, which would state, a person, except a peace officer acting within the scope of his or her employment, may not carry or possess a firearm on the floor of the Assembly during any session of the Assembly or in a committee hearing room during any meeting of a committee or subcommittee.

AB 48, introduced by “F” rated Assemblyman Nancy Skinner, would require reporting of ammunition sales, licensing of ammunition dealers and other controls of ammunition, similar to firearms. This bill would also expand the definition of large capacity magazine to include any readily restorable or disassembled magazine that appears to hold more than ten rounds, and would require notification to local law enforcement if an individual buys anything more than a small amount of ammunition in a five-day period.

AB 169, introduced by “F” rated state Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, would prohibit members of the general public from transferring any handgun that is not on, or drops off of, the state’s roster of approved handgun, to anyone other than a family member or spouse.

AB 174, introduced by anti-gun Assemblyman Rob Bonita, would remove the grandfather clause on existing firearms that are currently illegal to purchase, but are legal to possess if they were owned prior to making the firearm illegal.
AB 187, also introduced by Assemblyman Bonita, would impose an additional tax on the sale of ammunition.,

These laws are clearly unconstitutional and need to be ban from the laws.
This is why you need to get with it and write your reps and tell them how you feel. It is essential that we overfill their inbox and mail boxes with letters, they need to get the point.
I write in once in the morning before work, at lunch and when I come home. I send the same letter over and over but that need to happen with all of us. They will listen if there are enough letters.

rootuser 01-31-2013 6:20 PM

Just to clear up some things from previous posts:

Everything Brown has done so far is legal. The Assembly Bills are all legal in their origin, their contents may be up for challenge, but nothing was done in secret or "mandated" upon people. The bill that outlawed open carry was up for a vote through the legislative process. Jerry Brown just signed it. We live in a republic let's not forget..... There was no failure of procedure. You could have fought to keep it if you had so desired.

In California we are lucky in that we have the Initiative process. Jerry Brown did not "have the citizens vote" on anything as if it were some kind of decree. He used the process, like many other governors before him, and you can use too, to get something on the ballot that the voters could vote on directly. Arnold loved this process because he felt he could take things directly to the voters when the legislature failed to act.

As the previous poster mentioned, there are several Assembly Bills, Senate Bills etc that aim to curb gun ownership in several ways. You can fight these as a California resident. You can also get your own Initiative on the ballot and null and void all of them if you would like.

Some of these bills may suck horribly, but the Supreme Court has made it clear the states CAN restrict the right to bear arms in reasonable ways. In particular HR 1 will pass without issue and is in place in MANY states already. Some of the others will not pass as they stand now, AJR 5 will pass most likely as is completely constitutional to offer support and "urge" congress to act on something.

Our best bet is to defeat these bills before they ever get going. Trying to sue after the fact is just very rough.

vector16 01-31-2013 6:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rootuser (Post 10384303)
u can also get your own Initiative on the ballot and null and void all of them if you would like. .

How do get these items onto a ballot when the next election is so far off and these bills will pass or fail long before that time. When jerry brown brought some of these bills to the legistators, as BO has done, he brought the bill up for vote at a time when everyone was on vacation or on leave so there was no one to vote agaist the bill, then he signed it. He said in his campaigne that he was going tio bring everything to the people for vote. He has done this with only one issue, prop 30. The dream act was signed as an exec order. and then he raised sales taxes to pay for it. Jerry Brown is no mre than a criminal himself.

curtisfong 01-31-2013 7:10 PM

rootuser, I can't understand how you managed to get so many thing wrong in the same post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rootuser (Post 10384303)
In California we are lucky in that we have the Initiative process

No. We aren't. The initiative process is a disaster. It allows the tyranny of the majority to DIRECTLY modify the constitution. There isn't a single worse thing in CA's constitution than its implementation of the initiative process.

Quote:

to get something on the ballot that the voters could vote on directly. As the previous poster mentioned, there are several Assembly Bills, Senate Bills etc that aim to curb gun ownership in several ways. You can fight these as a California resident. You can also get your own Initiative on the ballot and null and void all of them if you would like.
Again, if you are looking to reign in gun control, there is no better way to lose to the tyranny of the majority than by this (broken) process.

Quote:

Some of these bills may suck horribly, but the Supreme Court has made it clear the states CAN restrict the right to bear arms in reasonable ways.
Wrong. Heller changes everything. We won't know until ANY of these go in front of SCOTUS, and thus far, none have.

Quote:

In particular HR 1 will pass without issue and is in place in MANY states already.
See above

Quote:

Some of the others will not pass as they stand now
The D's have a super majority. They can pass anything they want

Quote:

AJR 5 will pass most likely as is completely constitutional to offer support and "urge" congress to act on something.
JR's mean nothing. Never have.

Quote:

Our best bet is to defeat these bills before they ever get going.
Not going to happen. See above re: super majority

Quote:

Trying to sue after the fact is just very rough.
There is NO alternative.

BlooDSMeaR 02-01-2013 12:01 PM

Thanks for the comments. You guys have done a lot of thinking. I just know you can sue any one at any time for any reason. If we went in and sued and sued, eventual we would get heard.

vector16 02-01-2013 12:03 PM

I will sign the law suite but I will not pay the lawyer to file time and time agian.

curtisfong 02-01-2013 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlooDSMeaR (Post 10391496)
I just know you can sue any one at any time for any reason. If we went in and sued and sued, eventual we would get heard.

Or, you can contribute to CGF and SAF and let them doing the suing, instead of you screwing us all over with an ill-advised lawsuit that ends up with some very bad legal precedent.

fiddletown 02-01-2013 1:08 PM

A class action is a particular form of litigation used to collect money damages or financial restitution when, based on the same facts, a large group of people have suffered what to each of them is a relatively small economic loss. It is useful because it provides a way to pool a lot of small dollar claims, each of which would be economically impractical to pursue individually. A class action can become viable when the aggregate of the pooled claims reaches a sort of economic critical mass, making the remedy financially feasible.

A class action form offers no strategic or tactical advantage for RKBA litigation.

In fact there are over 70 RKBA cases currently pending in various stages in federal courts around the country. None of them are framed as class actions, and doing so would offer no advantage.

motorhead 02-01-2013 11:18 PM

we were kicking this idea around on another site, civil rights suit under 42 usc 1983. heller affirmed the 2nd as an individual civil right. the state of ca seeks to deprive us of this, under color of authority.
probably just another happy dream but it is interesting for discussion.

motorhead 02-01-2013 11:19 PM

we were kicking this idea around on another site, civil rights suit under 42 usc 1983. heller affirmed the 2nd as an individual civil right. the state of ca seeks to deprive us of this, under color of authority.
probably just another happy dream but it is interesting for discussion.

pHredd9mm 02-01-2013 11:39 PM

Weren't some states sued in the 1960's over racial civil rights issues? Why can't hundreds or even thousands of individuals file lawsuits in federal courts against the state of California taking away our 2A civil rights? A well coordinated attack might get someone's attention.

30rdMag 02-02-2013 12:08 AM

I would like someone to put a dollar value on all this gun law crap. From the time the rep gets an idea. To the time it passes and then needs to be defended in court and looses.

Take that muti million dollar amount per law. And put out in the publics eye. Why can't we fix our schools, road ways, and welfare system. Because these reps are wasting millions on gun laws that are flawed from the get go. A whole viral waste of tax payer money movement could be formed. One thing gets more people pissed off and fired up for change more then guns. Wasteful government spending! You put a number on that. You will get indirect support and lots of public outcry. Take away their blank check, and shut them down. Hold the reps accountable for their wasteful spending on flawed laws.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.