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 07-11-2018, 6:21 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 583
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Sharp et al vs Becerra, 7/18: Gun Groups Sue Over Faulty Registration System

I'm not seeing it posted yet, but could have just missed it. So, Moderators, if this is a dupe...

California Gun Groups Sue Over Faulty Registration System

Quote:
Gun owners' rights groups sued Wednesday over a California firearms registration system they claim puts law-abiding gun owners at risk of criminal charges.

The lawsuit against state Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his Department of Justice alleges that the system for registering so-called bullet-button assault weapons was unavailable for most of the week before the July 1 deadline.

The bullet buttons allow users to rapidly exchange ammunition magazines on an assault-style weapon by using a small tool or the tip of a bullet.

Owners who were unable to register by the deadline now potentially face prosecution through no fault of their own, according to the lawsuit filed in Shasta County on behalf of three gun owners by The Calguns Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation.

Becerra's office did not respond to telephone and email messages.

Transporting an unregistered assault weapon, even to a shooting range, can be charged as a felony under California law, with a prison sentence ranging from four to six years.

The suit says gun owners tried repeatedly to register their weapons using different web browsers, hardware and multiple devices but failed because the system repeatedly crashed or timed out before their applications were completed.

The suit asks a judge to give owners more time to register using a working registration system.

"For a whole week the system was largely inaccessible, so people who wanted to comply with the law simply couldn't and now they face becoming criminals because they couldn't do what the law requires," said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

The suit alleges that state justice officials knew the registration system was flawed and understaffed and had a substantial backlog despite a temporary infusion of nearly $2.6 million and 27 employees.
Here's a copy of the complaint filed...

Sharp, et al. v Becerra, et al.

Quote:
In this case, Plaintiffs seek an un-extraordinary result, compelled by the basic tenets of due process: That they simply be allowed to register their eligible firearms and comply with the law, and that the Attorney General, the DOJ, and their officers and agents similarly comply with the law by allowing such registrations and ensuring they are properly and timely processed through a functioning online database as they have been required by statute to do.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 07-11-2018 at 6:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-11-2018, 6:24 PM
seal20's Avatar
seal20 seal20 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: (714)
Posts: 2,160
iTrader: 177 / 100%
Default

How can they possibly NOT handle the 6 people who registered, 5 of which are members here!?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-11-2018, 6:30 PM
Sig556swat Sig556swat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bay area
Posts: 420
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seal20 View Post
How can they possibly NOT handle the 6 people who registered, 5 of which are members here!?
No I'm a member too.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-11-2018, 6:42 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,713
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

For a system that was supposed to handle up to 1.5 million estimated firearms, they did a piss poor job of handling two orders of magnitude less than the estimate. What a complete fuster cluck.
__________________
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
  #5  
Old 07-11-2018, 7:20 PM
MajorSideburns's Avatar
MajorSideburns MajorSideburns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 577
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Don't forget it took them how many months AFTER THE LAW KICKED IN to get the system up and online?
__________________
If you are not familiar with the below sites, I encourage you to check them out and use them for cash back and great deals on ammo from Cabela's and such. Check the deals forum here on calguns and you will see a lot of us using these now. If you are kind enough to sign up through my below referral links, we both get instant bonus rewards. Thanks!

http://activejunky.com/invite/186564
http://www.swagbucks.com/p/register?rb=32948177
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-11-2018, 7:26 PM
Unbekannt Unbekannt is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 81
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The State of California created this back up on purpose. Do you think the State office responsible for admitting illegal aliens, tuition free, to our colleges had such a back up?

The State of California is now and anti-white, anti-native, anti-English speaking, anti-property owner, anti-Republican, ANTI-FIREARM administration which makes BAD FAITH decisions and takes discriminatory action based on their prejudices.

If the current state officials had their way they would change the state flag from a brown bear to Ceasar Chavez riding a burro and find a way to pronounce "California" is some Spanish accent.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-11-2018, 7:40 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,064
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbekannt View Post
The State of California created this back up on purpose. Do you think the State office responsible for admitting illegal aliens, tuition free, to our colleges had such a back up?

The State of California is now and anti-white, anti-native, anti-English speaking, anti-property owner, anti-Republican, ANTI-FIREARM administration which makes BAD FAITH decisions and takes discriminatory action based on their prejudices.

If the current state officials had their way they would change the state flag from a brown bear to Ceasar Chavez riding a burro and find a way to pronounce "California" is some Spanish accent.
He's pretty close
__________________
One life don't blow it!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-11-2018, 7:58 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 861
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If we keep attacking sooner or later progress will result.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-11-2018, 8:10 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,270
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Litigation - moved.
__________________
[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
  #10  
Old 07-11-2018, 8:48 PM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,962
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.redstate.com/jenvanlaar/...ation-website/

Great read from redstate
__________________
Quote:
"If the American people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the law then they will conclude that neither are they." - Michael Cannon, Cato Inst. 2014

_________________________________________

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-12-2018, 7:07 AM
Bete Noire's Avatar
Bete Noire Bete Noire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 508
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Maybe we blew the system up...like 200k guns were registered. Each application takes 20min to review, thatís 66,666 hours or 1,666 - 40hr work weeks. Say they have 20 full time employees, thatís 83 weeks per employee to complete the backlog. Itís just not doable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-12-2018, 7:41 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 918
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bete Noire View Post
Maybe we blew the system up...like 200k guns were registered. Each application takes 20min to review, thatís 66,666 hours or 1,666 - 40hr work weeks. Say they have 20 full time employees, thatís 83 weeks per employee to complete the backlog. Itís just not doable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But they knew this. They had estimated about 1.5M firearms, and asked for $2.6M more money and hired 27 more employees. So... with same criteria

1.5M x 20 / 60 / 40 = 12,500 work weeks. Divide up say 30 folks = 416 weeks per employee. 52 weeks in a year, that's 8 years per person LOL. Say they only spend 10 min per submission of 5 pictures that is still 4 years per person.

In reality, they spent more than 20 min on each submission as there are multiple accounts of incompletes and resubmissions.

So from the getgo, they knew it would not have worked. They just used it to get more funding and more people.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-12-2018, 10:26 AM
big red's Avatar
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 829
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Maybe DOJ knew this lawsuit was coming and as a result withdrew the AW regs in hopes of being able to tell the judge no foul-no harm in reality. Maybe DOJ thought that would fly in a courtroom. One action might be the response to the other in trying to hold the state harmless and give them time to clean up the mess. of course that will mean more money and people. Just a thought
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-12-2018, 11:08 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,281
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I just read the complaint, and it looks like all we're asking for is an opportunity to register for those who missed the deadline. That's good I guess, but not really earth-shattering.

Either way, hopefully we win, and hopefully it doesn't take 5 years.
__________________
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
  #15  
Old 07-12-2018, 12:39 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

IMO, this suit is not as strong as it could be.

Pursue FTC violations as CFARS exposed Personally Identifiable Information.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-12-2018, 12:41 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I just read the complaint, and it looks like all we're asking for is an opportunity to register for those who missed the deadline. That's good I guess, but not really earth-shattering.

Either way, hopefully we win, and hopefully it doesn't take 5 years.
Litigation hasn't exactly panned out on 2A issues. I hope registration is extended, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-12-2018, 12:42 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootstrap View Post
IMO, this suit is not as strong as it could be.

Pursue FTC violations as CFARS exposed Personally Identifiable Information.
How is that going to help the folks who tried to register but couldn't due to the system being down?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-12-2018, 2:09 PM
1911su16b870's Avatar
1911su16b870 1911su16b870 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,745
iTrader: 138 / 100%
Default

While I hope this is the stone that brings the whole AW registration Goliath down, I am pessimistic that this will simply open up the registration process up again for an indeterminate number of months.
__________________
Trump on RKBA "The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. PERIOD."

CGF Contributor
NRA, CRPA LIFE MEMBER
Beretta, GLOCK (Gen 1-5, G42/43), SA-Colt AR15/M16, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer
Remington Nylon, 1911, HK, Ruger Armorer just for fun!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-12-2018, 3:24 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 184
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The purpose of this suit is to extend registration. That is it. I don't know where you would have gotten the impression that it was in any way trying to abolish or alter the registration process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911su16b870 View Post
While I hope this is the stone that brings the whole AW registration Goliath down, I am pessimistic that this will simply open up the registration process up again for an indeterminate number of months.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-12-2018, 3:27 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
How is that going to help the folks who tried to register but couldn't due to the system being down?
Would give the suit more teeth. Feds take on CA to eliminate the entire BBRAW scheme.

In the interim, injunction is issued to stay enforcement on unregistered BB rifles and lift any and all requirements on current BBRAWs.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-12-2018, 3:42 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,281
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootstrap View Post
Would give the suit more teeth. Feds take on CA to eliminate the entire BBRAW scheme.
It's unrelated, though. The plaintiffs are people who never got to register, thus their personal information was never leaked.

A complaint about that would be better attached to a different lawsuit that attacks the registration scheme as a whole, like Rupp v. Becerra.
__________________
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
  #22  
Old 07-12-2018, 4:20 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 810
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
It's unrelated, though. The plaintiffs are people who never got to register, thus their personal information was never leaked.

A complaint about that would be better attached to a different lawsuit that attacks the registration scheme as a whole, like Rupp v. Becerra.
Is it though? Was the info that was leaked limited to just people who registered? My wife has a CFARS account with personal info in it, but she does not have anything that needed to be registered, does that mean her info was safe somehow?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-12-2018, 4:26 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 184
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Does that matter? At best, the State can be forced to fix the error that let the data leak occur, notify all people affected by the leak, and pay damages. Why in the world would a crappy reg system or a data leak in any way nullify state law requiring registration? All they can do is be forced to fix the data leak issue, and extend the registration period. None of that has anything to do with the legality of SB880.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
Is it though? Was the info that was leaked limited to just people who registered? My wife has a CFARS account with personal info in it, but she does not have anything that needed to be registered, does that mean her info was safe somehow?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-12-2018, 6:38 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

mit31 - it's another angle of attack.

There are Federal laws that require companies to keep sensitive data secure. Not sure if those same laws apply to state .govs but in this case we have unlawful disclosure of PII and firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-12-2018, 7:57 PM
inyocountymark's Avatar
inyocountymark inyocountymark is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: right off 395 close to pearsonville
Posts: 110
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I hereby volunteer to personally examine and pass 100,000 applicants per day (as the troll stated in a registration thread) , all I need is gas money for the harley
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-13-2018, 12:41 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,984
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbekannt View Post
The State of California created this back up on purpose. Do you think the State office responsible for admitting illegal aliens, tuition free, to our colleges had such a back up?

The State of California is now and anti-white, anti-native, anti-English speaking, anti-property owner, anti-Republican, ANTI-FIREARM administration which makes BAD FAITH decisions and takes discriminatory action based on their prejudices.

If the current state officials had their way they would change the state flag from a brown bear to Ceasar Chavez riding a burro and find a way to pronounce "California" is some Spanish accent.
Remember - these same folks opened up DMV on Saturdays to process DL's for illegals. And all they need to register to vote is a valid SS# - they don't check to see if the valid SS# actually belongs to the person getting the DL. What was the % of DeLeon's family who he said had phony ID?
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-17-2018, 3:45 PM
SAD338 SAD338 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From LATimes today :

A lawsuit filed against the state by firearms groups, who campaigned against the new law, alleged some gun owners were unable to access the state website to register their guns before the deadline.

The DOJ denied the allegations in a statement, saying its website has been working correctly. A representative said the agency has not been served with any lawsuit, ďbut will be prepared to respond in court.Ē
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-17-2018, 4:04 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,543
iTrader: 154 / 100%
Default

Talk about habitual liars.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-17-2018, 8:17 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 583
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When even the Chicago Tribune runs a statement by the San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board entitled...

An unreasonable gun control law rollout

...you know there's trouble in Paradise.

Quote:
Gov. Jerry Brown and California’s legislative leaders won plaudits from opponents of America’s pervasive gun violence in 2016 when they banned the sale of semiautomatic rifles with “bullet buttons” that make it easy to quickly unload — and then load — ammunition magazines. Owners of the weapons that were purchased before the ban took effect last year were required to register their weapons with the state Department of Justice by June 30.

But a new lawsuit filed by several gun groups contends that the computer system to register the weapons wasn’t working in the days leading up to the deadline. This puts tens of thousands of Californians at risk of felony charges for transporting an unregistered assault weapon, with prison sentences possible of up to eight years. The gun groups say the failure of the registry system should have been anticipated by state Attorney General Xavier Becerra because of problems well before the deadline neared, and that the Department of Justice reacted indifferently to reports of online registration snags.

These claims are difficult to verify. But at the least, it’s a bad look for state government to botch the rollout of a reasonable gun control law. Gun owners who wanted to register but haven’t been able to shouldn’t face consequences. It’s another story for state bureaucrats who had plenty of advance notice and a clear deadline but didn’t get their jobs done — only starting with Becerra, who dropped a ball he didn’t need to and should be upfront about it.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-18-2018, 3:49 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I just read the complaint, and it looks like all we're asking for is an opportunity to register for those who missed the deadline. That's good I guess, but not really earth-shattering.

Either way, hopefully we win, and hopefully it doesn't take 5 years.
This lawsuit does a lot more to legitimize the ban, and more bans like it, than it does to undermine it. The publicity it has gotten, and is going to continue to get, is a bunch gun control advocates patting each other on the back.

I think itís an awful idea.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-18-2018, 2:16 PM
Marcus von W.'s Avatar
Marcus von W. Marcus von W. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Temecula, Southwest Riverside County
Posts: 1,606
iTrader: 70 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAD338 View Post
From LATimes today :

A lawsuit filed against the state by firearms groups, who campaigned against the new law, alleged some gun owners were unable to access the state website to register their guns before the deadline.

The DOJ denied the allegations in a statement, saying its website has been working correctly. A representative said the agency has not been served with any lawsuit, ďbut will be prepared to respond in court.Ē
I take this as an implied admission by DOJ that the website didn't have issues, it was working fine and doing specifically what it was designed to do and what the rogue criminal agency laughingly referred to as the "Department of Justice" wanted it to do - prevent law abiding Californians from obeying the law and registering their legally possessed rifles.

This is a sin of commission, not a sin of omission.
__________________
AK Nazi Purist & Mosin Sniper Devil
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 7:06 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.