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
  #1  
Old 11-30-2017, 2:04 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,927
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default 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 2:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-30-2017, 4:29 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 790
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I hope it goes well. They need to be sued, over and over, and over again.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-30-2017, 8:03 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
I hope it goes well. They need to be sued, over and over, and over again.
What we "need" is Trump/Pence to replace an anti on SCOTUS with another Scalia clone.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

225+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-30-2017, 8:39 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,533
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-30-2017, 8:54 PM
CreamyFettucini's Avatar
CreamyFettucini CreamyFettucini is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 465
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

This is a joke, the entire case is about the DOJ over stepping its authority and FPC didn't even mention the 5477 regulation(post registration modification).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-01-2017, 5:24 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,251
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post

I have said it before, gun-mageddon brought us an avalanche of new laws -
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

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
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.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-03-2018, 6:07 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,524
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Current status from FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/holt_...olicycoalition
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice]

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
  #8  
Old 01-03-2018, 6:42 PM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: East of Sacramento
Posts: 1,119
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

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 6:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-03-2018, 7:19 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,933
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
What we "need" is Trump/Pence to replace an anti on SCOTUS with another Scalia clone.
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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-03-2018, 8:49 PM
ROMEOHOTEL's Avatar
ROMEOHOTEL ROMEOHOTEL is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: N OC
Posts: 221
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-03-2018, 8:56 PM
ROMEOHOTEL's Avatar
ROMEOHOTEL ROMEOHOTEL is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: N OC
Posts: 221
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-03-2018, 10:07 PM
rero360 rero360 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 3,804
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-04-2018, 6:53 AM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 790
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How do you eat a big meal...........one little bite at a time. Sue the Bas#ards. You can't win if you don't fight.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-04-2018, 10:07 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,927
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

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 10:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-04-2018, 10:28 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 774
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
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.
Yup, here is an interesting twist.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-05-2018, 2:15 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,192
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walmart_ar15 View Post
Yup, here is an interesting twist.

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.
The difference is that the DOJ doesn't have a list of featureless rifles like they did for the SKS registration fiasco.
__________________
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
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 10:16 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.