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
  #121  
Old 03-02-2018, 6:32 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 USMCM16A2 View Post
Fabio,


What does this mean, Thanks A2
In the tentative ruling the court is saying the plaintiffs are using the wrong procedure to challenge the regs or more specifically the DoJ's decision to implement the regs without following APA procedures. It's a bit of a procedural head spinner. If the court adopts its tentative ruling, the plaintiffs can amend its pleadings. No idea whether the court heard argument on the substance of the PI motion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 03-02-2018, 6:41 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Ellipses added.

Now, can plaintiffs get an injunction halting implementation while the mandamus action proceeds?
OK. But how can the flat out refusal to follow statutory mandates be deemed an exercise of discretion or an administrative decision?

Last edited by BAJ475; 03-02-2018 at 6:44 PM.. Reason: correct typo
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 03-02-2018, 6:43 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
In the tentative ruling the court is saying the plaintiffs are using the wrong procedure to challenge the regs or more specifically the DoJ's decision to implement the regs without following APA procedures. It's a bit of a procedural head spinner. If the court adopts its tentative ruling, the plaintiffs can amend its pleadings. No idea whether the court heard argument on the substance of the PI motion.
Head Spinner! Got my head spinning.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 03-02-2018, 7:02 PM
USMCM16A2 USMCM16A2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,369
iTrader: 100 / 100%
Default

Fabio,


Thanks as usual, A2
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 03-03-2018, 12:21 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default Judge Hoodwinked?

As I previously posted in response to FGG's comment that the court presented a procedural head spinner, my head was spinning. So I did some limited research and have come to the conclusion that the judge was hoodwinked by the DOJ's deceptive footwork. My conclusion is based on the following and if the judge sticks to the tentative, maybe he would reconsider based on the following.

Lets start with Department of Health Care Services v. Office of Administrative Hearings (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 120. There the court said:

"The issue the Department raises, however, is the same issue it raised in its traditional and administrative mandamus claims. As the Educational Agencies argue, while declaratory relief is appropriate to establish rights between parties 'in cases of actual controversy' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1060), it is not an appropriate means to obtain judicial review of an administrative decision. (State of California v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 249; see Tri-County Special Educ. Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 576 ['"The declaratory relief provisions do not independently empower the courts to stop or interfere with administrative proceedings by declaratory decree."'.)" (Department of Health Care Services v. Office of Administrative Hearings, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th 120, 155-156.)

So, the implication is that the phrase “administrative decision” is something that is part of or follows an administrative proceeding. But there has been no request to interfere with an administrative proceeding because there has been no DOJ proceeding to begin with. You would think that in a “proceeding” the aggrieved party would have been a participant.

So lets explore the issue of what is an administrative decision that is not appropriate for review in an action for declaratory relief. Is it merely an order following an administrative proceeding or hearing or is it every decision made by an administrative agency or body? In Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach (1971) 6 Cal.3d 279 the court said: “‘[While] an action for declaratory relief may properly test the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance (McCarthy v. City of Manhattan Beach (1953) 41 Cal.2d 879, 882 [264 P.2d 932]; People v. Amdur (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 951, 968 [267 P.2d 445]), it is not an appropriate method for judicial review of administrative decisions. (Hostetter v. Alderson (1952) 38 Cal.2d 499, 500 [241 P.2d 230])’ (Floresta, Inc. v. City Council (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 599, 612 [12 Cal.Rptr. 182].)” (Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach, supra, 6 Cal.3d 279, 287.) The court then added. “Although proceedings for declaratory relief were not a proper vehicle, the complaint could and should have been construed as a petition for a writ of mandate to determine whether the defendant city or any of its agencies had prejudicially abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's application for a variance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5; Hostetter v. Alderson, supra, 38 Cal.2d 499, 500; Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 638 [234 P.2d 981].)” (Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach, supra, 6 Cal.3d 279, 287.) But this does not fully answer the question and we must look further and dig deeper.

What the Floresta court said was. “On the other hand, while an action for declaratory relief may properly test the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance (McCarthy v. City of Manhattan Beach (1953), 41 Cal.2d 879, 882 [264 P.2d 932]; People v. Amdur (1954), 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 951, 968 [267 P.2d 445]), it is not an appropriate method for judicial review of administrative decisions (Hostetter v. Alderson (1952), 38 Cal.2d 499, 500 [241 P.2d 230]).” (Floresta, Inc. v. City Council, supra, 190 Cal.App.2d 599, 612.) But still we have no answer to the question of what is an administrative decision that is not appropriate for review in an action for declaratory relief.

In Escrow Owners Assn. Inc. v. Taft Allen, Inc. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 506 the court said: “Moreover, an action for declaratory relief is not proper procedure unless an actual controversy exists between the parties, and it may not be used as an attack upon an order of an administrative agency. (Floresta, Inc. v. City Council, 190 Cal.App.2d 599 [12 Cal.Rptr. 182]; Hostetter v. Alderson, 38 Cal.2d 499 [241 P.2d 230].)” (Escrow Owners Assn. Inc. v. Taft Allen, Inc, supra, 252 Cal.App.2d 506, 510.) What is interesting here, is that the court spoke of an “order” of an administrative agency, rather than a mere decision or regulation of an administrative agency . So we need to look at what the court in Hostetter said. There the court said: “An action for declaratory relief is not appropriate for review of an administrative order. (See 10th Biennial Report of the Judicial Council of California, 137.) However, the complaint may be regarded as a petition for a writ of mandate. (See Boren v. State Personnel Board, 37 Cal.2d 634, 638 [234 P.2d 981].)” (Hostetter v. Alderson, supra 38 Cal.2d 499, 500.) Again, the reference was to an administrative order rather than a mere decision of an administrative agency or one if its regulations.

So, without explanation, the courts have, over time, substituted the phrase “administrative decision” for the phrase “administrative order.” To the extent that the term administrative decision is used to refer to an administrative order, there would be no problem. But here, we are not dealing with an administrative order, which is something that generally follows a hearing of some sort. So, it appears to me that the DOJ capitalized on the unexplained substitution of the phrase “administrative decision” for the phrase “administrative order” in order to hoodwink the judge.

IMHO, the court should consider the concurring opinion of Justice Broussard in Henning v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1262, where he said:

“It is our obligation, when presented with a question of statutory interpretation, to determine the true meaning of the statute. (Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California E. Com. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 321, 325-326 [109 P.2d 935]; see also Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1389 [241 Cal.Rptr. 67, 743 P.2d 1323]; Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 71 Cal.2d 907, 917 [80 Cal.Rptr. 89, 458 P.2d 33].) We should not overstate the deference which we owe to administrative interpretations of statutes. [footnote omitted] It is true that an administrative agency may interpret the statutes it is charged with implementing, and that this construction is entitled to great weight. (Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California E. Com., supra, 17 Cal.2d 321, 325-326; see also Banning Teachers Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 799, 804 [244 Cal.Rptr. 671, 750 P.2d 313].) Nonetheless, the administrative interpretation is not binding on this court. (See Perdue v. Crocker National Bank (1985) 38 Cal.3d 913, 935-936 [216 Cal.Rptr. 345, 702 P.2d 503]; Carmona v. Division of Industrial Safety (1975) 13 Cal.3d 303, 310 [118 Cal.Rptr. 473, 530 P.2d 161]; Skyline Homes, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 663, 669 [174 Cal.Rptr. 665].) ‘[I]t is the duty of this court, when such a question of law is properly presented, to state the true meaning of the statute finally and conclusively. ... [Citations.] The ultimate interpretation of a statute is an exercise of the judicial power. [Citations.]’ (Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California E. Com., supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 326; see also Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra, 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1389; Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 71 Cal.2d 907, 917, fn. 15.) Once this court has indorsed a particular interpretation of a statute, an administrative agency lacks authority to interpret the statute differently. (See Crounse Corp. v. I.C.C. (6th Cir. 1986) 781 F.2d 1176, 1186, cert. den. 479 U.S. 890 [93 L.Ed.2d 264, 107 S.Ct. 290].)” (Henning v. Industrial Welfare Com., supra, 46 Cal.3d 1262, 1282-1283, Broussard, J. concurring.)

So, it would seem to me, the court’s first task should have been to examine the implementing statutes to ascertain their meaning, before attempting to resolve the issue of the of whether or not they have been followed and then the appropriate method of review. In fact, it appears to me that Government Code section 11350 demands and permits nothing less and should have been controlling. I will say it again, It appears that the judge may have been hoodwinked.

If you think I missed something or am misconstruing something, your thoughts and opinions are welcome.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 03-03-2018, 12:26 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

^^^^Too much work for a Superior Court judge to do.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 03-03-2018, 12:34 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
^^^^Too much work for a Superior Court judge to do.
This is what they have research attorneys for.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 03-08-2018, 2:09 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,569
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Going to Mediation?

Quote:
03/05/2018 ADR Stipulation Mediation filed

Stipulation

Comment
Parties to engage in mediation. Mediator: James A. Ardaiz
https://www.bakermanock.com/attorney/james-ardaiz

Quote:
James A. Ardaiz
Justice Ardaiz has over 30 years of service to California as both a trial and appellate court judge administrator. He recently retired from the Fifth Appellate District where he had served since l994.
Background
With over 30 years of service to California as both a trial and appellate court judge, Presiding Justice James Ardaiz of the Fifth District Court of Appeal has joined Baker Manock & Jensen as Of Counsel. Justice Ardaiz served as the Administrative Presiding Justice of Court of Appeal, headquartered in Fresno, since August 1994.

Justice Ardaiz served as Administrative Presiding Justice, Fifth District Court of Appeal (1994-2010); Associate Justice, Fifth District Court of Appeal (1988-1994); Superior Court, County of Fresno (1985-1988); Municipal Court, County of Fresno (1981-1988); Chief Deputy District Attorney, Homicide, County of Fresno (1997-1981).

California Jurist of the Year (1999-2000); Chair Executive Committee Judicial Council; Chair Task Force on Trial Court Employees (creating new personnel system for 20,000 employees in 58 counties with separate systems, negotiating all labor issues); Co-Author, California Evidence; National lecturer and state lecturer in evidence, trial practice, judicial decision making; Distinguished American Award (2008); Japanese American Citizen's League Hastings Alumnus of the Year (Fresno Chapter); four-time recipient of the Ralph Klepp Award for judicial management in California.

Education
University of California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D., 1974)
California State University, Fresno (B.A., 1970)
Bar Admissions
State Bar of California (1974)
__________________
Watch & Pray

Last edited by Dump1567; 03-08-2018 at 2:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 03-08-2018, 3:29 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
Going to Mediation?
Huh? I thought the case was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days from date of dismissal?
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 03-08-2018, 6:50 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Huh? I thought the case was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days from date of dismissal?
That is pretty much what the tentative said. But the minute order says taken under advisement.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 03-08-2018, 8:42 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
That is pretty much what the tentative said. But the minute order says taken under advisement.
Hmmm. Sounds like someone made an argument that resonated with the judge.

And now the case is in ADR? That seems rather odd. CA-DoJ usually doesn't negotiate outcomes.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 03-09-2018, 9:45 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 Status Update

I just wanted to chime in so you all don't have to speculate.

Yes, we appeared and asked the court to reverse its tentative for many of the reasons BAJ475 laid out above and then some. The judge took the matter under advisement and will either adopt his tentative, revise his tentative but reach the same result, or reverse (or he could ask for additional briefing, but not likely). Hopefully, we will find out soon.

As for the ADR filing, the court requires that the parties participate in some ADR. We are working with the state to avoid it, as it would be futile here.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 03-09-2018, 3:35 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
I just wanted to chime in so you all don't have to speculate.

Yes, we appeared and asked the court to reverse its tentative for many of the reasons BAJ475 laid out above and then some. The judge took the matter under advisement and will either adopt his tentative, revise his tentative but reach the same result, or reverse (or he could ask for additional briefing, but not likely). Hopefully, we will find out soon.

As for the ADR filing, the court requires that the parties participate in some ADR. We are working with the state to avoid it, as it would be futile here.
Thank you for the update.

Edit: What is a 'normal' time for a Superior Court Judge to make a ruling once a tentative has been taken under advisement?

Last edited by aBrowningfan; 03-09-2018 at 9:30 PM.. Reason: See Edit: above
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 03-12-2018, 4:24 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,569
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

If I'm reading this right, the Tentative ruling was adopted?

Quote:
Tenative Ruling:
To sustain Defendants' demurrer, with leave To amend. Plaintiffs are granted 30 days' leave, running from service by The clerk of The minute order, To file on amended pleading. New allegations in The amended complaint are to be set in boldface type. To find The motion for preliminary injunction moot.

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.
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 03-12-2018, 5:12 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
If I'm reading this right, the Tentative ruling was adopted?
It would seem to be.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 03-12-2018, 6:46 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
If I'm reading this right, the Tentative ruling was adopted?
Yes, that is the way I read the court's order of March 9, 2018. So the question is whether the plaintiffs will ask for reconsideration based on what I previously posted or not? I doubt it, based on sbrady's post that they made my arguments and then some. All I can say is those who support the 2A and have the opportunity to vote for this judge's re-election, should remember this decision when he runs for re-election.

This decision by this duped and hoodwinked judge, just reinforces my decision to move out of CA.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 03-12-2018, 8:14 PM
dwinters14's Avatar
dwinters14 dwinters14 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 588
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Can someone explain this in laymans terms? I dont understand the legal jargon.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 03-12-2018, 8:42 PM
elpaisa1 elpaisa1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 161
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Demure is a written response requesting dismissal stating there is no legal basis for a trial. A judge is going to review and determine validity of the demure.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:07 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwinters14 View Post
Can someone explain this in laymans terms? I dont understand the legal jargon.
The court agreed with the DOJ that the plaintiffs could not challenge the regulations by way of a "complaint for declarative relief," which is what they did. The court declined to construe the complaint as a writ, which is the other way of changeling state regulations and which, in my opinion, the court was obligated to do based on its conclusions. So, the plaintiffs will either have to alter their tactics to frame the complaint as a writ, or they will have appeal the denial the trial court's decision as an abuse of discretion.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:08 PM
dwinters14's Avatar
dwinters14 dwinters14 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 588
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
The court agreed with the DOJ that the plaintiffs could not challenge the regulations by way of a "complaint for declarative relief," which is what they did. The court declined to construe the complaint as a writ, which is the other way of changeling state regulations and which, in my opinion, the court was obligated to do based on its conclusions. So, the plaintiffs will either have to alter their tactics to frame the complaint as a writ, or they will have appeal the denial the trial court's decision as an abuse of discretion.
Ah ok, thanks.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 04-05-2018, 7:26 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default Update?

It has been nearly 30 days since the court adopted its tentative ruling. Any news on what the plaintiffs plan to do?
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 04-05-2018, 7:30 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 BAJ475 View Post
It has been nearly 30 days since the court adopted its tentative ruling. Any news on what the plaintiffs plan to do?
Per the case info., they're going back to court on April 19th for the Writ of Mandate.
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 04-06-2018, 8:19 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
Per the case info., they're going back to court on April 19th for the Writ of Mandate.
Nothing like running up against a deadline to get AW registrations done.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 04-19-2018, 5:56 PM
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 Update

I just wanted to give everyone who is following this case an update.

The case is completely briefed and ready for decision on the merits.

The Court continued today's hearing on the merits to May 25. The Court wanted to set it for May 11 but DOJ's counsel is unfortunately out of town for two weeks.

I informed the Court of the impending July 1 deadline and Judge Snauffer assured me that he would make a quick ruling. So we should know the outcome of this case prior to July 1.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 04-19-2018, 6:23 PM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,911
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks for the update. What kind of judge is Snauffer and his record? If its a breach of ethics, protocol or process to give an opinion on his prior rulings then don't answer but one has to wonder who is deciding a case.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04-19-2018, 7:02 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,652
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Thank you, Sean
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04-20-2018, 10:02 AM
GunsInMyEyes GunsInMyEyes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 259
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Sweet we'll have an official ruling sometime in the year 2038-2048 when they've illegally passed tons of other laws that undermine the constitution. Ww3 will have broken out the dollar will be bankrupt , globalist will have taken over robots will have our jobs we'll all be in a matrix ... Good thing we are complying and listening to illegal unconstitutional laws and then fighting them in court
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-20-2018, 10:25 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

No, I think we will have a ruling here by June. The judge understands the timing issue here.

This is not the court's fault, just the nature of the timeline we were dealt and some unforeseen time loss. There was a procedural disagreement that took months to resolve. Had that not happened we would likely already have a ruling here. The Court is accommodating and, believe it or not, DOJ is not obstructing the fast pace and actually quite accommodating as well.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:49 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,652
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I'm curious what your recommendation is regarding people who need to register before the deadline, should we go ahead and proceed with the process now, or wait and see what happens with this case? Any pros or cons either way? Any chance the judge might force a deadline extension? (I didn't see a prayer for that specifically in the complaint). If the regs get tossed, but the deadline does not get extended, does that potentially cause a situation where people who haven't applied before the judgment may never be able to? Or a situation where people who have registered have their registrations voided?
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-20-2018, 1:38 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I'm curious what your recommendation is regarding people who need to register before the deadline, should we go ahead and proceed with the process now, or wait and see what happens with this case? Any pros or cons either way? Any chance the judge might force a deadline extension? (I didn't see a prayer for that specifically in the complaint). If the regs get tossed, but the deadline does not get extended, does that potentially cause a situation where people who haven't applied before the judgment may never be able to? Or a situation where people who have registered have their registrations voided?
Great questions. Even if the court provided a tentative prior to the 25th and adopted its tentative on the 25th that would leave a little over a month to complete the registration if the ruling is against us. And, we do not know how the DOJ will treat submitted but not yet completed registrations. So, IMHO, waiting any further to register will be a very big gamble. I have already registered mine and will have my wife submit her co-registration at this time.

I believe that if the regs get tossed the deadline goes with them and we would be back to the situation that existed before the regs were adopted.

While others may have different opinions, I am not so concerned about the State of California knowing that my ARs fit their BBAW definition as I am with my ability to lawfully remove the BBs. My lack of concern about what the State of California knows stems from the fact that my wife and I are in escrow on a property in Idaho and once we complete the move all of this will be moot.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 04-20-2018, 2:22 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 746
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
I believe that if the regs get tossed the deadline goes with them and we would be back to the situation that existed before the regs were adopted.
If the regulations get tossed wholesale, I don’t think anything happens automatically to the deadline. If you follow the PC 30605 -> PC 30680(c) -> PC 30900(b) rabbit hole, you’d just be left with an exemption that’s impossible to meet. The 30605 ban would become a total one, and we’d have to start another lawsuit starting from that situation.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 04-20-2018, 2:40 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,652
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
If the regulations get tossed wholesale, I don’t think anything happens automatically to the deadline. If you follow the PC 30605 -> PC 30680(c) -> PC 30900(b) rabbit hole, you’d just be left with an exemption that’s impossible to meet. The 30605 ban would become a total one, and we’d have to start another lawsuit starting from that situation.
That's sort of the way I interpret the situation, too. That's why I'm hoping for Sean's hypothesis about how this might all play out.

I know it's impossible to predict anything with 100% certainty, but a list of some of the more likely outcomes would be good. As it stands right now, most of us (myself included) don't really understand how this might play out if we get a partial or complete victory in this lawsuit. I'm a bit worried that we might be shooting ourselves in the foot.
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-20-2018 at 2:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-20-2018, 2:42 PM
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

I'm not going to make any recommendations. But, I can confirm we are not asking that the deadline be extended. DOJ may have to ask for an emergency extension from the legislature to get itself in order.

Though, all we are asking is that the DOJ not require people to comply with the challenged regulations in order to register their firearms. So I don't know why DOJ would need to do that.

All I can say is: we will see.

That being said, the regulations say that a registration can be applied for up to June 30, 2018. (See section 5476(c): https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...let-button.pdf).

As does DOJ's website: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-20-2018, 2:47 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,652
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

That makes sense, thanks for that clarification.
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04-20-2018, 3:52 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
If the regulations get tossed wholesale, I don’t think anything happens automatically to the deadline. If you follow the PC 30605 -> PC 30680(c) -> PC 30900(b) rabbit hole, you’d just be left with an exemption that’s impossible to meet. The 30605 ban would become a total one, and we’d have to start another lawsuit starting from that situation.
But there is an alternate way to look at this. First, you start with the doctrine that the law does not require an impossibility.

As stated in PC 30900(b) the law presently requires one to "register the firearm before July 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5)." Now, if there are no lawful regulations in effect prior to July 1, 2018, because they were tossed, it becomes physically impossible to do what is demanded by section PC 30900(b) and, as you note, PC 30680(c). But PC 30680(c) also states an impossibility so it must be stricken, leaving only PC 30680(a) & (b), which are not impossible to comply with. So the argument is that those that meet the requirements of PC 30680(a) & (b) are exempt, in that, the word "all" in PC 30680 now only applies to subdivision (a) & (b), which is all that is left after striking the impossibility. Of course, this defeats the legislative purpose of requiring registration, so the court would need to find a different solution.

Striking all of PC 30680 to avoid the problem of merely striking subdivision (c) doesn't work because it would be contrary to the legislative purpose of allowing for registration.

Next, assume that the court strikes only those provisions the writ complains about. This does not resolve the issue because it would take time to reprogram the DOJ computers to make the system work and we have another impossibility to comply with all of the statues. So, if the court strikes anything, other than cannot remove BBs, it appears that the DOJ will have to ask the legislature for emergency legislation to extend the deadline.

Of course, the court may deny the writ, which will create a mad rush for those who do not want featureless or fixed mag ARs.

Last edited by BAJ475; 04-20-2018 at 3:54 PM.. Reason: correct typo
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04-20-2018, 4:30 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,781
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just sitting on the fence watching the grass grow...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
The Court continued today's hearing on the merits to May 25. The Court wanted to set it for May 11 but DOJ's counsel is unfortunately out of town for two weeks.

I informed the Court of the impending July 1 deadline and Judge Snauffer assured me that he would make a quick ruling. So we should know the outcome of this case prior to July 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
No, I think we will have a ruling here by June. The judge understands the timing issue here.
The case is fully-briefed.

The judge is un-phased by a two-week delay in hearings, and promises an early judgement.

That leads one to believe that the hearings are a formality...probably not going to sway the discussion one way or the other from the information he now holds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
The Court is accommodating and, believe it or not, DOJ is not obstructing the fast pace and actually quite accommodating as well.
I believe it. The DOJ is in a no-loss situation, here. They pushed the regs through on what might be an overreach of scope and an improper usage of the waiver of Administrative Procedures Act to fulfill the desires of the Legislature. If the ruling goes against OAG, Becerra can pin it on his predecessor not acting quickly enough, which required his staff to put these regs forward. NOw, the Court disagrees with the outcome, and he can praise the separation of powers working as it is supposed to.

Then, he can move forward on the guidance of the Court and ask the Legislature to recast the registration deadline. If it comes early enough, he can tuck it into a Budget Trailer Bill where no one will see it.

The really interesting question will arise if the regs are thrown out. Registration was required only upon the issuance of (legal) regulations. If the regulations are deemed not legal, that would seem to make all executed registrations null. If that happened, it would be fun if the Court directed OAG to destroy any and all records of such registrations.

Mulligan.




.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04-23-2018, 12:29 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
The judge is un-phased by a two-week delay in hearings, and promises an early judgement.

That leads one to believe that the hearings are a formality...probably not going to sway the discussion one way or the other from the information he now holds.
I believe it. Snip...
I am increasingly pessimistic about the outcome. Time to file an application for permit to possess.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04-23-2018, 8:47 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
I am increasingly pessimistic about the outcome. Time to file an application for permit to possess.
I agree and have already submitted mine, which were approved. Only need to submit co-registration for my wife. Will all be moot when we move to our new home in Idaho.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 05-06-2018, 12:50 PM
solidfreshdope solidfreshdope is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 600
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I feel like a strong red state should purposefully introduce an AWB for the court to strike down and define some case law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
Welcome to the United Snakes.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 05-06-2018, 12:53 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidfreshdope View Post
I feel like a strong red state should purposefully introduce an AWB for the court to strike down and define some case law.
HA! Lots of luck getting a Red State legislator to walk the plank on that idea. Their response would be to invite all refugees from CA to relocate to their state.
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 3:15 PM.




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.