Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 01-21-2018, 11:42 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 787
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
So Blake Graham says that they hired 24 people to process the registrations. Given that they started in August that gives them under 11 months to process the estimated 1.5 million applications. Factoring in holidays (thanksgiving, Christmas MLK, etc) it comes to about 20 working days per month and 7 hours a day after breaks and lunch.

So doing the math the unskilled workers that have little or no firearms knowledge are supposed to process an application every 90 seconds. This does not take into account having to reprocess errors in the form, which probably is 100%, nor does it take into account joint registrations. These people are in soooo far over their heads the process won't he completed for years.
I think you are being optimistic. 90 seconds/application might be after a few months of experience. Starting out, it is going to be longer. I wonder if there will be another lawsuit filed on behalf of those who have submitted the application but haven't received their permit due to delay on DoJ part?
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:13 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 854
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

He's saying in order for them to process all the anticipated applications, they would have to be doing it in 90 seconds with the amount of staff they have. Not that it is the actual rate of processing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-22-2018, 10:12 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,004
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Like their Rube Goldberg background check system, it is surely designed to require maximum human intervention and prevent streamlined processing using modern, commercially available (hence cost effective) technologies.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-23-2018, 11:35 AM
Crazydave's Avatar
Crazydave Crazydave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
So Blake Graham says that they hired 24 people to process the registrations. Given that they started in August that gives them under 11 months to process the estimated 1.5 million applications. Factoring in holidays (thanksgiving, Christmas MLK, etc) it comes to about 20 working days per month and 7 hours a day after breaks and lunch.

So doing the math the unskilled workers that have little or no firearms knowledge are supposed to process an application every 90 seconds. This does not take into account having to reprocess errors in the form, which probably is 100%, nor does it take into account joint registrations. These people are in soooo far over their heads the process won't he completed for years.

Simple math means they may need more people.. or are underestimating # of applications expected.

24 people * 125 Working Days in 2018 before June 30, 2019 * 8 hours a day, * 60 minutes in an hour = 1,440,000 minutes of working time.

That means they will have less than 1 minute per application.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-23-2018, 12:23 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I reckon this is a feature, not a bug, in the plan.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-23-2018, 1:38 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,569
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

It seems to me with all the stupid kickbacks, the processors of our registration are guaranteeing themselves future work and an extension past what was expected.

I just received my third kickback on the same firearm. Wouldn't it have been more cost effective to review my whole registration, make notes of what I needed to fix, and send just one email denoting that? Now someones going to review the whole thing again for the next "kickback".

And what about joint registration. Instead of just being able to add your joints and their info., you have to complete a separate registration form. And probably go through the same "kickback" process with a different reviewer that doesn't like something.

These guys are brilliant. They've turned a 1 year temp. job into a 20 year career. And with no government oversight, they can just keep going back to the legislators and squeezing more money out of the system to pay these guys. Especially since our $15 registration fee ain't going to cover it.
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-23-2018, 3:05 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
It seems to me with all the stupid kickbacks, the processors of our registration are guaranteeing themselves future work and an extension past what was expected.

I just received my third kickback on the same firearm. Wouldn't it have been more cost effective to review my whole registration, make notes of what I needed to fix, and send just one email denoting that? Now someones going to review the whole thing again for the next "kickback".

And what about joint registration. Instead of just being able to add your joints and their info., you have to complete a separate registration form. And probably go through the same "kickback" process with a different reviewer that doesn't like something.

These guys are brilliant. They've turned a 1 year temp. job into a 20 year career. And with no government oversight, they can just keep going back to the legislators and squeezing more money out of the system to pay these guys. Especially since our $15 registration fee ain't going to cover it.
^^^^ We have a winner.

They will stretch this registration period out until the next one starts in 2020 when we have to register all semi-auto rifles as AWs. And then that will take them out until 2022 when all rifles will be registered as AWs. When that is done it will be 2025 and I will be retiring from my job, moving out of state and taking all of my scary Assault Weapons (ARs, Marlins and 10/22s, and bolt guns) to another state where they are just tools. And these firearm registration drones will be well on their way to drawing a pension from an already bankrupt state.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-23-2018, 4:58 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,569
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

If they did such a "great job" on designing the Registration website, why so many 'incomplete" notices for everyone? (I just got 2 more today).

This is a far cry from the postcard registration we've done in the past.

I do hope our Attorneys bring this to the Judge's attention.
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-23-2018, 9:56 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 787
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
If they did such a "great job" on designing the Registration website, why so many 'incomplete" notices for everyone? (I just got 2 more today).

This is a far cry from the postcard registration we've done in the past.

I do hope our Attorneys bring this to the Judge's attention.
+1.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-24-2018, 6:47 PM
veeklog's Avatar
veeklog veeklog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Now Orange County
Posts: 927
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
If they did such a "great job" on designing the Registration website, why so many 'incomplete" notices for everyone? (I just got 2 more today).

This is a far cry from the postcard registration we've done in the past.

I do hope our Attorneys bring this to the Judge's attention.
This whole process is a sh@tshow, all designed to punish law abiding citizens.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-25-2018, 6:56 PM
swift swift is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 881
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post

I just received my third kickback on the same firearm. Wouldn't it have been more cost effective to review my whole registration, make notes of what I needed to fix, and send just one email denoting that? Now someones going to review the whole thing again for the next "kickback".
.
I had 5 kickbacks, donít know yet if there will be six. Iím glad I didnít have 20 to register, it would be a full-time job!
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-29-2018, 11:29 AM
SigEquinox SigEquinox is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 194
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Are people seeing kickbacks if you cannot remember from whom and when you bought the firearm? What are people doing when they can't remember/can't find the paperwork?
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-30-2018, 11:24 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 804
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
Both [preliminary injunction hearing] rescheduled to 01/30/18

Waiting for news on this today

I was able to find this court case page. It has all the briefings, schedule, etc., but I can't find a way to provide a direct link to it. So here's how you get there:

Go to: https://publicportal.fresno.courts.c...e/Dashboard/26
Use the search with these criteria
Select Location: Civil
Select Hearing Types: Civil Hearing Types
Select Search Types: Case Number
Search by Criteria: 17CECG03093
Search by Date From: 1/30/2018
Search by Date To: 1/30/2018

It shows the preliminary injunction hearing is at ~3:30 PM today.


https://publicportal.fresno.courts.c...kspaceMode?p=0
__________________
-------------------------

Last edited by thorium; 01-30-2018 at 11:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-30-2018, 11:38 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 787
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
Waiting for news on this today

I was able to find this court case page. It has all the briefings, schedule, etc., but I can't find a way to provide a direct link to it. So here's how you get there:

Go to: https://publicportal.fresno.courts.c...e/Dashboard/26
Use the search with these criteria
Select Location: Civil
Select Hearing Types: Civil Hearing Types
Select Search Types: Case Number
Search by Criteria: 17CECG03093
Search by Date From: 1/30/2018
Search by Date To: 1/30/2018

It shows the preliminary injunction hearing is at ~3:30 PM today.


https://publicportal.fresno.courts.c...kspaceMode?p=0
Thanks for providing the link and how to navigate.

As far as outcome, best case is that a PI is issued shortly after the hearing. Worst case, the motion for PI gets denied. There might be a tentative ruling by this Friday.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-30-2018, 11:54 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,633
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

For what it's worth, here's how the timeline for Duncan V. Becerra (the LCM ban lawsuit/injunction) played out:

5/17/17 - Complaint filed.
5/26/17 - Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
6/05/17 - Defendant files opposition to PI motion.
6/13/17 - Motion hearing held.
6/29/17 - Preliminary Injunction issued.


So in that case, the PI was issued and two days after the hearing.

However, the impending 7/1 magazine ban may have (and probably did) play a role in speeding up the process a bit. In this case, there is also an impending 7/1 ban that is a factor, but we really need an answer regarding the injunction several months before the deadline to still have time to register - hopefully the court takes this into consideration.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 01-30-2018 at 12:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-30-2018, 11:59 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 804
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Yeah this is state court since its basis (our argument) is that the CA DOJ BOF is not following state law on administrative law/regulations (Administrative Procedures Act).

Duncan v. Becerra was Federal district court, because the basis was the constitution; 2nd amendment, 5th amendment takings, 14th amendment, etc.

I don't think a State court's timeline will have much in common with a Federal District Court.

Interesting nonetheless.
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-30-2018, 12:17 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,633
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Good point. Does anyone know what judge was assigned to this case? I'm having trouble finding that.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-30-2018, 12:21 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 854
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Good point. Does anyone know what judge was assigned to this case? I'm having trouble finding that.
Case Number
17CECG03093

Judicial Officer
Snauffer, Mark
__________________

Last edited by ajb78; 01-30-2018 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-30-2018, 12:27 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,633
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
Judicial Officer
Snauffer, Mark
Thanks, I remember now that I've checked into his history before. Didn't turn up much relevant info, other than he's a Gray Davis appointee. He was automatically re-elected in 2014 because he had no opposition.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-30-2018, 1:31 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 804
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Womp Womp.

It looks like in the last few hours their web site has updated to show this being rescheduled to March 1st!

03/01/2018 Demurrer

Judicial Officer
Snauffer, Mark

Hearing Time
3:27 PM

Comment
Patty Li(defendants)


03/01/2018 Motion - Preliminary Injunction

Judicial Officer
Snauffer, Mark

Hearing Time
3:27 PM

Comment
Shawn Brady


03/01/2018 Motion - Change of Venue

Judicial Officer
Snauffer, Mark

Hearing Time
3:28 PM

Cancel Reason
Off Calendar

Comment
Patty Li
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 01-30-2018, 3:48 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,569
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Well at this rate, Registration will be over by the time an Injunction is granted. And from the lack of urgency, you can tell it probably ain't going to happen.

Might as well Register if anyone's been putting it off.
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-01-2018, 9:47 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
Well at this rate, Registration will be over by the time an Injunction is granted. And from the lack of urgency, you can tell it probably ain't going to happen.

Might as well Register if anyone's been putting it off.
Yes! It looks like waiting any longer for a ruling could become a costly mistake. I have several ARs in .223 Wylde and 6.8 SPC with barrels from 16" to 20." Because they are ARs each upper will fit each lower, giving numerous combinations. Is there a short and concise thread that is recommenced for those of us who are planning on registering at this time? Understanding that the DOJ wants a picture of the bullet button, just how much detail is required?

What happens if I replace the 18" barrel on my AR10 with a 20 to 22 inch barrel?
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-01-2018, 12:06 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,569
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Yes! It looks like waiting any longer for a ruling could become a costly mistake. I have several ARs in .223 Wylde and 6.8 SPC with barrels from 16" to 20." Because they are ARs each upper will fit each lower, giving numerous combinations. Is there a short and concise thread that is recommenced for those of us who are planning on registering at this time? Understanding that the DOJ wants a picture of the bullet button, just how much detail is required?

What happens if I replace the 18" barrel on my AR10 with a 20 to 22 inch barrel?
Well, there's my thread.

AW Registration - What I've Learned - Read before Registering

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1414621

The only modification the DOJ says you can't do is replace the BB/mag lock. You can do anything else you want (caliber, barrel length, under 30 inches, etc.).

My recommendation to everyone is use the "comments" section to specify any future modification ( barrel lengths form 16" to 26", may switch to other caliber, etc.). And explain anything that might confuse the reviewer (I give examples in the above link).

Print out your CRIS once it's submitted (this is a copy of exactly what was submitted to the DOJ). IMO, this is proof of registration and shows what you listed in the comments for future mods. There probably won't be any issues, but now you have proof that the DOJ approved your AW with the future mods you anticipate.
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-01-2018, 2:44 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
Well, there's my thread.

AW Registration - What I've Learned - Read before Registering

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1414621

The only modification the DOJ says you can't do is replace the BB/mag lock. You can do anything else you want (caliber, barrel length, under 30 inches, etc.).

My recommendation to everyone is use the "comments" section to specify any future modification ( barrel lengths form 16" to 26", may switch to other caliber, etc.). And explain anything that might confuse the reviewer (I give examples in the above link).

Print out your CRIS once it's submitted (this is a copy of exactly what was submitted to the DOJ). IMO, this is proof of registration and shows what you listed in the comments for future mods. There probably won't be any issues, but now you have proof that the DOJ approved your AW with the future mods you anticipate.
Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-02-2018, 9:40 AM
ceedubG's Avatar
ceedubG ceedubG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 293
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Hope to see a post on why it was continued to March.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-03-2018, 12:49 AM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 611
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Because the court said it is.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-03-2018, 6:27 AM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,569
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Because the court said it is.
Thanks for the update. Are they trying to consolidate this with Holt?
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-05-2018, 1:17 PM
ceedubG's Avatar
ceedubG ceedubG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 293
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Because the court said it is.
thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-27-2018, 10:38 AM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,569
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Some activity coming this Thursday (March 1st).
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-27-2018, 2:06 PM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: backing up into Nevada
Posts: 1,381
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

The whole system is going to implode and then everyone who owns any kind of gun is going to be declared a criminal. Imagine what would happen if those who are refusing to jump through the hoops suddenly flooded the system with their rifles. if the courts do not throw all of these laws out it will take the state's whole budget just to conform with the gun laws and forget the roads, public health and other services like welfare. But then this is California isn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-27-2018, 8:23 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 787
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warbird View Post
The whole system is going to implode and then everyone who owns any kind of gun is going to be declared a criminal. Imagine what would happen if those who are refusing to jump through the hoops suddenly flooded the system with their rifles. if the courts do not throw all of these laws out it will take the state's whole budget just to conform with the gun laws and forget the roads, public health and other services like welfare. But then this is California isn't it?
They will just increase fees to firearms owners to fund the registration process. This is a well-trod path, so no litigation opportunity to derail the effort.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-27-2018, 8:27 PM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 9,083
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryS View Post
I reckon this is a feature, not a bug, in the plan.
Nah.

Quote:
Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-27-2018, 9:02 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,549
iTrader: 154 / 100%
Default

Sometimes malice and stupidity and incompetence coexist just fine. These aren't mutually exclusive things.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 03-01-2018, 8:05 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,512
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Loss. From my source:

In light of the ruling on Defendants’ demurrer, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is moot.

Last edited by taperxz; 03-01-2018 at 8:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 03-01-2018, 3:37 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 804
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Ummm the official document (law and motion minute order; attached) from today shows that the Demurrer/Motion for Preliminary injunction: "Matter is argued and submitted" and "Taken under advisement."

This hearing didn't occur until ~3 PM today, so not sure how your "source" would know the result before the hearing even occurred. Not saying you're wrong, just that it doesn't make sense to me.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 17CECG03093.pdf (87.5 KB, 41 views)
__________________
-------------------------

Last edited by thorium; 03-01-2018 at 3:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 03-01-2018, 3:44 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 787
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
Ummm the official document (law and motion minute order; attached) from today shows that the Demurrer/Motion for Preliminary injunction: "Matter is argued and submitted" and "Taken under advisement."

Maybe your "source" heard the oral arguments/hearing first hand and walked away with their belief of what they thought the judge would do?
Doesn't sound like an order has issued. Although the prospects for a PI don't exactly look promising.

It would seem to be time to submit to the allegedly illegal BB-equipped AW registration requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 03-02-2018, 5:07 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,971
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
Ummm the official document (law and motion minute order; attached) from today shows that the Demurrer/Motion for Preliminary injunction: "Matter is argued and submitted" and "Taken under advisement."

This hearing didn't occur until ~3 PM today, so not sure how your "source" would know the result before the hearing even occurred. Not saying you're wrong, just that it doesn't make sense to me.
Tentative Ruling

This was published before the hearing and is not the final order.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 03-02-2018, 5:19 PM
USMCM16A2 USMCM16A2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,365
iTrader: 99 / 100%
Default

Fabio,


What does this mean, Thanks A2
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 03-02-2018, 6:21 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,375
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Mandamus is the traditional remedy to compel a public agency to exercise its discretion under a proper interpretation of the applicable law.
... “It is settled that an action for declaratory relief is not appropriate to review an administrative decision.” ...Where a complaint seeks declaratory relief of an administrative decision, a demurrer thereto is properly sustained on that ground alone. ...

In the case at bench, Defendants demur, in part, on the ground that Plaintiffs are challenging Defendants’ administrative decision to use the “file & print” process to adopt regulations intended to enforce recent amendments to the Assault Weapons Control Act, therefore an action for declaratory relief and preliminary injunction is improper.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are challenging an administrative decision, i.e., Defendants’ interpretation of the extent of the Legislature’s exemption from the APA (see Pen. Code ß30900(b)(5)), and that accordingly, Plaintiffs must seek writ relief.

It appears that Defendants’ determination that the challenged regulations are APA-exempt, and therefore appropriate for the “file & print” process, was an administrative decision. As administrative decisions are to be challenged by seeking writ relief, Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint is sustained on this ground, with leave to amend.

In light of the ruling on Defendants’ demurrer, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is moot.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Ellipses added.

Now, can plaintiffs get an injunction halting implementation while the mandamus action proceeds?
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 03-02-2018, 6:26 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCM16A2 View Post
Fabio,


What does this mean, Thanks A2
I would also like your input. What, if any, are the differences between an "administrative decision" and other decisions by an administrative agency?

Last edited by BAJ475; 03-03-2018 at 8:28 AM.. Reason: correct typo
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:03 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.