|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
I might suggest that if any money can be recouped that it be used to carry one lawsuits now in the courts and to help fund new challenges. It is money already spent and could be used better if we all agree to donate any share we might get. Let DOJ pay for it's own demise.
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Factoid: Some in DOJ are squirming in there chairs and it isn't their tight underwear.
__________________
U S Coast Guard Squadron Three, Viet Nam 1968 NRA Life Member "Well Stanley, here's another nice mess you've got me into!" Oliver Hardy Last edited by Old Scribe; 08-24-2017 at 3:26 PM.. Reason: spelling |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
What could possibly make you think that? Their long track record of being made to behave?
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Precisely.
Same here. But I've got many more than 20! |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Wake up and smell the corruption, DOJ my @ss, more like DOC for corruption. |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Excuse me if I don't celebrate and throw a party after hearing this news.
But I think the next likeliest action is that the CA DOJ will just appeal the ruling, and nothing will change for the next 5 years, at least, while the appeal waits to be heard. I've come to accept, that I will be long dead and buried and skeletonized, before any semblance of justice is brought to this once-great state.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member. Hunter & Target Shooter. San Diego County. Passionate supporter of RTKBA. Supporter of conceal and open-carry.[/SIZE] "It's called the Bill Of Rights. Not the Bill of Needs."[/SIZE] |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Yep. It should yield just about the same results as LE or any other government agency investigating themselves.
__________________
__________________________________________________ _____________ “When you're taking flak you know you're over the target” |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Seems all governmental agencies, especially the CA DOJ, regularly exceed their authority. Why, because there is no penalty for it. Nobody at the agency spends time in jail for contempt.
Found this quote regarding the IRS overstepping its authority: “No matter how it is framed, the question a court faces when confronted with an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers is always, simply, whether the agency has stayed within the bounds of its statutory authority.” City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1868 (2013).” 5 We have this issue today and forever until bureaucrats are held responsible. |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
Whaaaat!!? A government Institution caught doing something unethical and potentially illegal? NO!
This is yet another clear example that these institutions lack the credibility and professional integrity required for citizens to entrust them with personal information. Firearms sales and regulation should be left up to the individual state. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'm with you on your statement. Most likely they'll find some way to avoid paying us or anyone back because if they do they'll find out that their agenda can't move forward due to the loss in money. With the new law suit the the NRA and CRPA filed regarding the new AW law they should take both issues to court and declare both unlawful and be ordered to dismiss and review once again what their doing. All its doing is taking money from the working class and putting it in their pockets. Mail Clerk |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
General population: 3,817 Police officers: 108 Legal CCW: 18 |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
I too would be wiling to donate all of my DROS refund to the CRPA or put it towards any legal battle to fight the asinine laws in CA. The problem is getting the DOJ to actually pay money back is going to be next to impossible I think.
__________________
“The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory.” - Aldo Gucci |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
The DOJ is a federal institution, and the CA DOJ is merely a subsidiary of that Institution.
Last edited by OrwellianEra; 12-03-2017 at 9:04 AM.. |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Wut?
__________________
I hate people that are full of hate. It's not illegal to tip for PPT! |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Another example of a "No Civics Classes For You" public education victim.
|
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Cross-linking from this thread: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...1&postcount=15
What's the status of this case? I didn't even know it was still going, and according to the legislative analysis for the Assembly Public Safety Committee on the 4/9 hearing for AB-1669 (concerning changing the DROS fee) is that the judge ruled against us on March 4th, yet the last update that I can find about this was by the NRA-ILA in December 2018. Does anyone want to post the March 4th ruling? |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Status Update
Here is the ruling: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...try-Ruling.pdf
Unfortunately, the new judge mostly negated the win the previous judge gave us by declaring that DOJ had shown that the DROS Fee is not being over-charged, apparently based on DOJ's briefing, though it is not clear. The new judge also ruled that the DROS Fee is not a tax because only DROS Fee payers end up in APPS, so that class of people can be saddled with the costs of APPS. We do not believe that is the proper analysis; rather, we believe the fee vs. tax analysis should look only at those costs a fee payer's actual activity causes. In the case of a DROS Fee, that is the cost of a background check and registration, not the cost of the APPS program, which less than one percent of DROS Fee payers will ever fall into. We will be appealing. |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
By that logic, property tax isn't a tax because only property owners pay it. Income tax isn't a tax because only people with income pay any.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Good point, you would think they would want all prohibited persons listed, whether they have DROS'd a firearm in CA or not.
__________________
|
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Just a reassignment, it happens. Unfortunate for us, as he gave us a solid win in the first part of this case.
No, it is not true, and we pointed this out to the court. To be clear, though, all prohibited people end up on a list, but only people who have a firearm "registered" to them in AFS can be in the APPS database. It is possible to acquire a firearm that is in AFS without paying a DROS Fee. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The Judge SAID,...... that DOJ SAID,...... that DOJ is GTG. RE-AFFIRMING POST #41 Quote:
Quote:
MOVE ALONG PEASANTS...............NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!! Last edited by retired; 04-20-2019 at 9:01 PM.. Reason: Rule 3 |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
There is an article on the new judge "HON. RICHARD K. SUEYOSHI" in this law magazine.
Listing this here in case someone wants to know his personal background, and how it might affect his views on this case. He's a UC Berkeley graduate with some recognitions for his volunteering and service. He values diversity and handles a large caseload of misdemeanors. https://issuu.com/milenkovlais/docs/...2018_online/18 He seems like a decent fellow. I regret he opined the way he did. Still parsing the judgement now. Last edited by Citizen One; 04-11-2019 at 1:15 AM.. |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, if we should challenge the ruling and prevail, then the case may set us up to challenge AB-1669 (should it pass). AB-1669 does do a better job of spelling out how DROS fees are allocated, which is part of the challenge that was made in Gentry vs Harris/Becerra, and winning on that probably wouldn't be enough to challenge AB-1669, given it spells out allocation better (even if that allocation is a "blank check" so to speak)... however the other part is whether the fee is actually a tax, and if we got it ruled as a tax, which would (from a skimming, I haven't had time to read yet, been busy this last couple weeks) violate the California Constitution, then that would definitely set us up to challenge and/or invalidate AB-1669, since it does the same core thing that is being challenged: Using fees to fund enforcement activities by the CA DoJ. I think an analogue would be (though do forgive if I get it wrong): DROS fees shouldn't be raised to fund enforcement of bad actors who commit firearm crimes (who may or may not buy them at a state dealer in the first place) no more than should the state fees/taxes on cell phone bills be raised to fund the enforcement of bad actors who engage criminal speech like incitement to violence (who may or may not use California based plans or approved services in the first place). Service is a bit different than a Product, but that's a state tax that exists that comes to mind related to a purchased thing used for speech. Still need to fully read this opinion later, and thanks Sean for posting it. Last edited by BeAuMaN; 04-16-2019 at 9:02 PM.. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Some of you need to review Rule #3 and the pertinent part as written by Kestryll follows:
Quote:
|
#77
|
||||
|
||||
Going to note here that on 5/25, AB-1699 is no longer going to increase the DROS fee directly, and instead is creating a seperate "supplemental fund" for regulatory activities and enforcement (to be used by appropriation by the legislature). Furthermore, they removed the only subdivision (11) that concerns enforcement from the original DROS fee.
I'd -like- to think that this is because CA DoJ feels threatened by Gentry v Becerra, since I believe this tries to sidestep the case (for going into the future, but there's still things to answer for previous fee setting and fund raiding). If you're paying attention Sean, I imagine it's.... too early to talk about, but if you do have any thoughts, I'd be curious. The other thing this did is reduce the bill from a 2/3 vote to a majority vote, but I'd find it hard to believe that this bill would have trouble getting votes, so I imagine that's ancillary. Last edited by BeAuMaN; 05-25-2019 at 12:57 AM.. |
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
After what was, no doubt, an, “Oh, S***”, moment, this was amended out, because DOJ has steadfastly refused to call DROS a “tax”, relying on its status as a “fee”, which doesn’t require 2/3 vote to pass.
__________________
"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." Last edited by Dvrjon; 05-25-2019 at 7:33 AM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|