|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
George Holt, et al. v. California AG Xavier Becerra SAF, FPC, CGF (CA Superior Court)
A new one AW regulations challenge
CGF, SAF FPC,FPF sponored. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1512070807 Last edited by taperxz; 11-30-2017 at 1:32 PM.. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
What we "need" is Trump/Pence to replace an anti on SCOTUS with another Scalia clone.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
You have GOT to be kidding me. Here is FPC, FPF, CGF, again trying to duplicate NRA efforts. They really owe their contributors an explanation as to why this lawsuit is necessary in light of the CRPA/NRA-backed Villanueva suit, and not just a waste of precious gun owner resources.
Is this going to be just like the magazine lawsuit? Where the NRA-backed Duncan wins a resounding victory with the preliminary injunction, and the FPC-backed Weise case gets thrashed (and inexplicably keeps pushing on)? I have said it before, gun-mageddon brought us an avalanche of new laws - why can't they go after some of the other pieces of legislation the NRA hasn't filed a lawsuit on yet? How about the 80% law? Restriction on CCW? Something, anything, else.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
We haven't seen what they have next. Prop 63 ensured more gun control is favored by the sheep of this state. We will see worse legislation in the next year or two.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A contact the governor https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend. NRA Life Member. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Current status from FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/holt_...olicycoalition
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
each lawsuit may score different points adding up to a more complete victory in the end and resulting in the removing of these laws. No one lawsuit forces the courts to consider everything and nothing should fall through the cracks or provide a loophole for the state to get through. if the first lawsuit wins then the rest will just add needed support to that decision by either reaffirming the original decision or catching things that might have been missed. But beware that the state might go the prop route again since it once won at the ballot box already with prop 63 and scare tactics. Let the lawyers fight the court battles and gun owners need to concentrate on the public education and using correct and honest statistics to bring people around to our side. a public campaign would not hurt, bumper stickers, and forcing the issuance of concealed weapons permits based on criteria that does not consider the so-called loosely defined moral character of a citizen. If our legislators and local officials under investigations are allowed to carry concealed weapons then moral issues are bogus in denying the average citizen a CCW in any county. if a sheriff pulls a CCW on moral grounds but has politicians under investigation doing CCW in that county that should be enough to file a lawsuit against the sheriff and the county.
Last edited by warbird; 01-03-2018 at 5:45 PM.. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
That and a DOJ willing to ride into town wielding consent decrees and an FBI looking into all the crooked pols in Sacramento!!! Uncle Leland needs a big spoon!
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Injunction filed in Holt et vBecerra
Here is press release dated January 3, 2018.
The case is filed in California Superior Court for Riverside County. The filings today also added another individual plaintiff - Craig Stevens. SFC Stevens is an active duty member of the California Army National Guard and is currently deployed to the Middle East. RIVERSIDE, CA (January 3, 2018) — Attorneys for 5 California gun owners and 4 civil rights advocacy organizations have filed for an injunction against the state’s Department of Justice regulations on so-called “assault weapons.” In the request for an injunction, the plaintiffs argue that “they, and many others similarly situated, will suffer irreparable injury if they are forced to comply with the registration requirement in accordance with the Challenged Regulations by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2018. In essence, they and many others would either be illegally forced to register or illegally denied the ability to register their firearms.” Also filed was an amendment to the case, adding Craig Stevens as an individual plaintiff suing over the regulations. According to the filing, Stevens is “currently an active-duty member of the California Army National Guard, having the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC), and is currently and as of December 23, 2017, deployed overseas to the Middle East.” Stevens has tried multiple times to comply with the DOJ regulations on “assault weapons,” but the DOJ rejected his application even though there was no legal basis for them to deny him the registration of his firearm. “The declaratory and injunctive relief, and/or mandamus relief, sought in this action are necessary as set forth herein, to vindicate his right (and obligation), and the rights (and obligations) of others similarly situated, to register this legally-owned firearm as the only available means by which to maintain lawful possession of such firearms according to the DOJ’s regulatory scheme,” the court filing says. About the new filings, plaintiffs’ attorney George M. Lee explained, “As we show in our motion for an injunction, the State’s regulatory and enforcement scheme was designed and functions to separate law-abiding people from their rights, property, and statutory obligations. We seek in this case to make DOJ follow the same laws they impose on others – and protect law-abiding gun owners in the process.” Raymond DiGuiseppe, co-counsel and former California deputy attorney general, agreed. “The Department of Justice has grossly exceeded their authority and is illegally imposing its will on thousands of California gun owners. Their regulations and actions undermine the rule of law and put potentially hundreds of thousands of people at risk for serious criminal liability. We look forward to resolving these issues as quickly as possible and protecting California’s law-abiding gun owners from this regulatory overreach.” Named as defendants are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Chief of the DOJ Bureau of Firearms Stephen Lindley, the California Department of Justice itself, Director of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) Debra Cornez, and State Controller Betty Yee. The lawsuit is backed by The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF). A copy of the complaint and petition for writ of mandate can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/holt-v-becerra. CASE BACKGROUND: In July 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a number of new gun control bills into law, including two (SB 880, Hall; AB 1135, Levine) expanding the State’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The bills were universally opposed by civil rights advocacy groups including Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of California, the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and others. “The Legislature ignored every rule in the book to fast-track their civilian disarmament agenda and herd the people into a state-wide gun-free-zone,” said FPC Spokesperson Craig DeLuz in a statement at the time. Following that, in December 2016, the California DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault weapons” regulations under the OAL’s “File & Print” process, which means that the DOJ claimed the regulations were not subject to the public notice or comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, the DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period, after receiving thousands of opposition letters from FPC members and Second Amendment supporters. Then, in May of last year, the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File & Print” process. FPC, FPF, CGF, and Craig DeLuz sued the DOJ over the Department’s actions of blocking access to the public records concerning its promulgation of these regulations. The regulations were completely rejected by OAL a little more than a month later. Next, the DOJ submitted a virtually-identical set of regulations under the “File & Print” process, again claiming “APA-exempt” status. Inexplicably, this time the OAL approved the regulations, shuttling them along for publication through the Secretary of State in July 2017 and thus allowing the DOJ to proceed with its new “assault weapon” regulatory process. Then, just before closing doors for the Thanksgiving 2017 holiday, the DOJ notified FPC and other Institutional Plaintiffs that it had filed yet another proposed rulemaking on “bullet-button assault weapons” (that would create new 11 CCR § 5460) for the purpose of attempting to retroactively bootstrap its prior July regulations into effect for all purposes including criminal prosecutions. FPC published the new proposed regulations and prior regulatory updates at BulletButtonBan.com, a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California assault weapon laws and regulations. Members of the public can use FPC’s Grassroots Action Tools to submit responsive written comments to DOJ regarding the new proposed regulations. A public hearing on the new regulations is scheduled for 10 a.m. on January 8, 2018, at the Resources Building Auditorium in Sacramento. ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS: Plaintiffs George Holt, Irvin Hoff, Michael Louie, Rick Russell, and Craig Stevens are all law-abiding, tax-paying residents of California who lawfully own firearms potentially subject to the DOJ’s illegal regulatory scheme. This scheme would retroactively deem their firearms “assault weapons” that either must now be registered as such through a burdensome and wasteful registration process or that cannot be registered all, effectively rendering any continued possession unlawful. The DOJ’s regulations expose them to criminal liability that would not otherwise exist under the actual laws regulating firearms in California. The plaintiffs have joined this lawsuit to stand against the illegal regulatory actions of the DOJ and protect their rights and the rights of countless other law-abiding California gun owners being placed in jeopardy. ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS: The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights. Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach. Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.
__________________
“The instruments by which governments must act are either the authority of the laws or force. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted; and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government there is an end to liberty!”- Alexander Hamilton |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Notice that a public hearing on the new regulations is scheduled for 10 AM on January 8th at the Resources Building Auditorium in Craptomento.
__________________
“The instruments by which governments must act are either the authority of the laws or force. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted; and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government there is an end to liberty!”- Alexander Hamilton |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The press release is a bit confusing, I've been on Active duty orders since Sept 20th, left the state on the 24th, I officially became a plaintiff on Dec 23rd. As many of you know from the other threads, I've been trying to get this issue straightened out with CAL DOJ since mid August and at every turn they have refused to be of any assistance, hence my entrance into this lawsuit.
__________________
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I like this challenge! Whether you are a fan or not of the sponsors of this lawsuit. It does put DOJ in a corner.
Basically, the PC says, "if you possessed a bullet button firearm legally prior to 12/31/16 YOU MUST REGISTER IT. The PC does not give you the ability to change it and not register it. (legislative screw up) The fun part is that DOJ won't let you register it if it is now lacking a BB due to making it featurless. Who is right? DOJ or the Penal Code as voted on in Sacramento? Technically and legally, if you don't register, then the gun is illegal per the PC. Last edited by taperxz; 01-04-2018 at 9:11 AM.. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
For those that remembered the SKS fiasco, when DOJ initially indicated that some SKS rifles are NOT required to be registered and later changed its opinion and illegally extend the registration period? Resulted in some late to register SKS owners losing their registered rifles. Who is to say that after June 30, 2018 some anti-gun group will not sue to enforce that ALL bullet button rifles once possessed between 2001 and 2016 should have been registered and DOJ had no legal authority to grant waiver due to modification to featureless. So for those folks with rifle that changed from BB to featureless that did not register are now possessing illegal AW that will have to be turned in. Specially those purchased post 2014, since they already know who you are. Or a short visit to your local FFL to copy the 4473 binder. Hum, maybe it is the plan from the beginning... The reason DOJ pushes for featureless conversion vs registration. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor American Marksman Training Group Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page NRA Memberships at Discounted fee |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
The DOJ has filed a "Notice of Related Case" on this lawsuit with the Judge in "Danny Villanueva vs Xavier Becerra" Case. It sounds like they're complaining that "Holt" is basically the same case as "Villanueva" and one or the other should be tossed (if I understand it correctly).
__________________
Watch & Pray |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
George Holt, et al. v. California AG Xavier Becerra SAF, FPC, CGF (CA Superior Court)
Nobody wins 2A cases in CA. The object is to build up a history of ruling that eventually SCOTUS will cert for hearing.
Here are two that have had some success only to be overturned in the 9th circus. http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/ http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/ You seem to like to fanboy for FPC. Why not signup as volunteer fundraiser and make yourself even less useful. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. Last edited by Blade Gunner; 01-30-2018 at 9:41 PM.. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
YOU are the fanboy since you bash FPC. I look at the merits of each case and root for them. I'm a fanboy of the 2A not who brings it to court |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
George Holt, et al. v. California AG Xavier Becerra SAF, FPC, CGF (CA Superior Court)
Quote:
Cite the cases. I’ll wont be surprised they are just copies with different plaintiffs that have already been filed. This seems to be there me too MO. Except of course their anti 2A case to force gun owners to register featureless rifles. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. Last edited by Blade Gunner; 01-31-2018 at 10:11 AM.. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Silvester was filed by Cal Guns Foundation with Brandon Combs added as as plaintiff. FPC only filed an amicus brief per their own website (see below) https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/silvester Teixeira vs Alameda county filed by GCF, SAF and CAL-FFL. Again FPC only filed an amicus brief per their own website (see below) http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...0/13-17132.pdf Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
George Holt, et al. v. California AG Xavier Becerra SAF, FPC, CGF (CA Superior Court)
Quote:
That good pretzel logic. But if you want to continue to make donations to FPC, it’s your money. In the mean time I’ll recuse myself from engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. Last edited by Blade Gunner; 01-31-2018 at 1:54 PM.. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'm just saying that what matters is 2A rights in CA and being a fan boy of any group doesn't help our world. Right now we have two cases in front of SCOTUS. Do you want them to lose because the right group isn't supporting it? |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
What’s really sad is that many of you are so consumed by your own postings, you don’t even know what’s in the courts or not. I don’t care if it’s NRA or SAF sponsored Last edited by taperxz; 01-31-2018 at 9:25 PM.. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Thanks, a more concise explanation of too many cooks spoil the soup. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Look, I have less of problem with Silvester and Teixiera. These appear to be well-thought out challenges, and not on issues duplicative of the efforts of any other organization. It is worth noting, too, that the legal teams handling Silvester and Teixiera are not the same as Wiese and Holt. Why the change in counsel? I don't know. But counsel in Wiese and Holt do not appear to have much (if any) prior experience in 2nd Amendment cases, unlike Don Kilmer who is on Silvester and Teixiera.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
They really messed up on this challenge since it was really a zoning problem and not so much a 2A challenge. You don't measure from the front door, you measure from the property lines. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The George Holt Case is on hold until after a Hearing on April 19th in the NRA Case (Villaneuva) Case. Becerra has convinced the Judge that the NRA has framed the case incorrectly and doesn't have a legal leg to stand on without restating the case. Further, that the NRA Villaneuva Case is similar to the George Holt Case and the cases should be combined, expecially since the NRA Villaneuva Case is being reframed and now looks even more like the George Holt Case. This is a good example of why it's important to have more than one group file complaints about bad laws. This strategy is no different that what the Opposition is trying to do to us. The "Whack A Mole Strategy". Last edited by Heretodaygonetomorrow; 04-17-2018 at 8:42 PM.. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'll add that being in construction for 30 years, zoning is measured per parcel/address and not to the front of a building access. The plaintiffs, if i'm accurate are now fighting this from a 2A persepective though. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by taperxz; 04-18-2018 at 12:43 PM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|