FPC / Calguns Foundation Lawsuit Regulations PRA

[Discogodfather]

I noticed these stories today about a lawsuit being filed by Craig Deluz of FPC against the DOJ:

https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ca...ic_records_act

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/calif...ic_records_act

It says that FPC and CGF is sueing the DOJ because they tried and were denied access to the BBAW regulations version #2 sent to the OAL by the DOJ on May 15th.

Here is where things get weird. I submitted an FOIA request to the DOJ on May 16th at around 7pm. On May 18th at around 4pm, I received several emails from the DOJ containing all the information I requested and actually more information. I ran home to try and put it up but others already had the pdf's uploaded, so I just took some of the documents and hosted them on my site and then posted it in the News Updates thread.

There was no cost, they were very nice, and everything was extremely professional. I used a generic FOIA form I got online and simply asked for the information because I was a gun owner and wanted to know.

So, I got my FOIA information. It appears someone else did to, I assumed it was Michel and Associates, but it could have been someone else.

Why the lawsuit when we got the information within a few days of their submission? We all shared the info as soon as we got it, so FPC and CGF also had it, FPC even posted the pdf within a few hours.

EDIT: I was wrong about the source of the PDF's distributed, including the ones emailed to me, as the DOJ. It was in fact the OAL reference attorney that contacted me, and this lawsuit is legit because the DOJ flat refused everyone's request to see the regulations. The OAL had to do the right thing, again. Sorry for the confusion. In fact, DOJ didn't even contact me to tell me I had been rejected, they just ignored me.

[SmallShark]

Well, clearly the DOJ tried to hide it at first. they should have just made it available to anyone who wanted to see.

As an agency which enforces the law, they should be held by higher standards than us mere mortals.


Didn't you feel the DOJ was shady?

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by SmallShark

Well, clearly the DOJ tried to hide it at first. they should have just made it available to anyone who wanted to see.

As an agency which enforces the law, they should be held by higher standards than us mere mortals.


Didn't you feel the DOJ was shady?

Shady? They filled my request within 36 hours and were very professional about it. They even broke up the emails because the files sizes were too large. This is just me, a private citizen with no affiliations to any groups.

They also granted it to others, because I was not the one to post the documents first.

Lawsuit?

[Citizen One]

A man in a suit walks into a post office. He is turned away. When he asks they say "They are under no obligation to serve him."

A man in a collared shirt walks into the post office. He is served. They are professional about it. They are even courteous.

Do you see anything wrong with the above? Answer should be apparent.

Whether it's worth pursuing, to the detriment of bigger fish, is another issue. Doesn't make it any less of the DOJ's fault though.

[chris]

The DOJ is doing everything it can to not allow the public to see it. Even with a FOIA request they don't want to do it. They want to "file and print" and enforce then be done with it.

Thankfully they have been caught red handed in going further than the legislation states. I will continue to say the gun ban lobby has a front row seat in the drafting of these regulations.

This is not the DOJ of past bans the DOJ we are dealing with has become an ideological machine of the gun banners. They want to hammer the sh*t out of us with the new law.

IIRC the NRA and the public had a say in the drafting of the SB23 regs. Today not so much. This alone should tell the extreme left (Democratic) shift in doing their dam job. They want zero input that much is apparent. No more apologizing for these people period. Call a spade a spade that's what they are.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

I noticed these stories today about a lawsuit being filed by Craig Deluz of FPC against the DOJ:

https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ca...ic_records_act

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/calif...ic_records_act

It says that FPC and CGF is sueing the DOJ because they tried and were denied access to the BBAW regulations version #2 sent to the OAL by the DOJ on May 15th.

Here is where things get weird. I submitted an FOIA request to the DOJ on May 16th at around 7pm. On May 18th at around 4pm, I received several emails from the DOJ containing all the information I requested and actually more information. I ran home to try and put it up but others already had the pdf's uploaded, so I just took some of the documents and hosted them on my site and then posted it in the News Updates thread.

There was no cost, they were very nice, and everything was extremely professional. I used a generic FOIA form I got online and simply asked for the information because I was a gun owner and wanted to know.

So, I got my FOIA information. It appears someone else did to, I assumed it was Michel and Associates, but it could have been someone else.

Why the lawsuit when we got the information within a few days of their submission? We all shared the info as soon as we got it, so FPC and CGF also had it, FPC even posted the pdf within a few hours.

Check your facts.

DOJ would not release the information. DeLuz was denied access by DOJ.

The information had to be released by OAL. OAL released them because it was obligated by law. DOJ broke the law by not releasing the information.

It's a fair lawsuit since DOJ was in violation of the public information act. I think it's fair to say that in order to preserve our 2A rights, we need to keep DOJ honest.

I don't care if it was the NRA or FPC filing, gotta keep them honest.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Check your facts.

DOJ would not release the information. DeLuz was denied access by DOJ.

The information had to be released by OAL. OAL released them because it was obligated by law. DOJ broke the law by not releasing the information.

It's a fair lawsuit since DOJ was in violation of the public information act. I think it's fair to say that in order to preserve our 2A rights, we need to keep DOJ honest.

I don't care if it was the NRA or FPC filing, gotta keep them honest.

You are right, I went back and checked the emails I received. I ended up sending the FOIA to the DOJ and the OAL, and the OAL reference attorney was the one that got back to me, not the DOJ.

So I guess this lawsuit is legit in the sense that DOJ refused to release and again we had to rely on the OAL to do their jobs, which they did with speed and effort.

Sorry about the confusion.

[God Bless America]

NOT FOIA.

FOIA IS FEDERAL

CA HAS A "PUBLIC RECORDS ACT" AKA "PRA" OR "CPRA." CA GOV. CODE SECTION 6250 ET SEQ.

NOT FOIA

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by God Bless America

NOT FOIA.

FOIA IS FEDERAL

CA HAS A "PUBLIC RECORDS ACT" AKA "PRA" OR "CPRA." CA GOV. CODE SECTION 6250 ET SEQ.

NOT FOIA

I titled it FOIA and printed that out in my letter, so they responded to it anyway. I'll make the correction for the future.

[God Bless America]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

I titled it FOIA and printed that out in my letter, so they responded to it anyway. I'll make the correction for the future.

They knew what you wanted, it happens all the time, but we should be correct in our terminology.

[chris]

FOIA is so widely known by many I see why he used it's familiar so people recognize it. I had no idea California had their own information request at the state level.

[Dump1567]

What are some of the outcomes to be expected from this lawsuit?

[SmallShark]

Originally Posted by Dump1567

What are some of the outcomes to be expected from this lawsuit?

Let them know they are being watched too.

Also force them to redirect their resources.