|
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
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I expect them to try to make the case that background checks up front are one important tool to keep prohibited people from getting guns, and that APPS is an equally necessary tool to remove guns from people who BECOME prohibited. I personally have all kinds of issues with how the APPS program is being handled but having a team that performs that function is a natural and nearly eventual consequence of having firearms registered. Which makes it unsurprising to me that they eventually got around to requiring long arms to be registered as well as handguns. I'd like to see us win, and do away with slush-fundiness, the APPS program (as currently implemented), and even with registration. I think that's kind of a tall order though.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender. |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
This just in...
Quote:
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It cost me $15.75 to renew my UT CCW. which includes making me a new card and mailing it to me....renewal app all done online BTW. Why does it cost CA $25 to run a single background check for a purchase?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance" Quote for the day: Quote:
Last edited by Untamed1972; 02-12-2015 at 9:42 AM.. |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
No case updates I know of but...
Relevant news, found posted in CCW sub-forums: Quote:
Story also back links to a news report from March: Quote:
__________________
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
I'd have to check the docket. Saw something come across last week but can't recall offhand. Maybe a proposed order dismissing the case? Will check later.
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Docs here: http://michellawyers.com/gentry-v-harris/ Last three activities listed there: Quote:
Last edited by readysetgo; 07-09-2015 at 5:11 PM.. |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Update on Case
Gentry is slowly moving forward in Sacramento. On June 1, 2015, the Trial Court ordered Defendants Kamala Harris (Attorney General for the State of California) and Stephen Lindley (Chief of the California Department of Justice’s Firearms Bureau) to produce 11 documents they had withheld from the Plaintiffs. The documents concern the Department of Justice’s (Department) internal analysis of the amount being charged for the DROS fee. Defendants withheld the documents under a claim that production of the documents “would chill full and candid assessment of departmental budget issues in general and similar issues affecting the Bureau of Firearms in particular.” The Trial Court, did not agree, however, and it ordered the production of all 11 of the documents the Plaintiffs had requested. The Trial Court stated it could “identify no public interest in not disclosing records of an analysis the Department is required to perform in order to charge the public a fee.”
Just a few days later, on June 5, 2015, the Trial Court heard oral arguments on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MJOP), which was an attempt to knock out a major portion of Plaintiffs’ case. The MJOP was grounded in the claim that Senate Bill (SB) 819 (allowing the DROS Fee to be used to fund APPS-based law enforcement activities, and perhaps more) violates Proposition 26, as found in Article XIIIA, section 3, of the California Constitution. Proposition 26 requires a 2/3 vote of each house for any bill that will result in “any tax payer paying a higher tax.” Plaintiffs argue that SB 819 turned a portion of funds collected under the guise of the (overinflated) DROS fee into a tax because it changed who pays for APPS-based law enforcement. Before SB 819, it was paid for out of the general fund; after SB 819, DROS fee payers appear to be the only ones footing the bill. On July 20, 2015, the Trial Court finalized its ruling on the MJOP. Unfortunately, it ruled in favor of the Defendants, dismissing the SB 819-based claim, apparently based on Defendants’ argument that, because SB 819 did not raise the amount at which the DROS Fee is charged (i.e., it was $19 before SB 819 and remains $19), it did not create a “higher tax.” That ruling will (at least for now) knock out Plaintiffs’ Proposition 26-based challenge to the DROS fee. Plaintiffs’ position is that the ruling incorrectly confuses the distinct concepts of fees and taxes, and that Plaintiffs will likely seek review of the ruling at the appellate court level. Regardless of the ruling on the MJOP, the case will continue. Plaintiffs intend to pursue at least one other claim in this lawsuit (seeking to have the Department of Justice actually calculate what the DROS fee should cost), and they may attempt to add new claims based on other constitutional arguments not previously raised. There are, however, procedural concerns to evaluate before determining how best to proceed. But we will keep everyone updated. Copies of the orders mentioned above are available at: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...-Procedure.pdf http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...er-Hearing.pdf |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Looks like an amended complaint was filed 12/30/15. This issue should not fall out of our minds IMO, they robbed us cold w/ this tax hidden as a fee.
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus Curious about the docs mentioned by Brady here (thank you Mr. Brady btw for your explanations in this thread): Quote:
|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
When I see the NRA on board with a lawsuit, it makes me so happy to be a member of the NRA. I'd hate to think my membership dues went only to ads, glad to see it make it's way into the legal system as well.
__________________
CA Ex-Pat US Navy Veteran NRA Life Member Springfield Armory & Smith&Wesson & Remington & Henry & Marlin ------------------------------------ "Why does anyone need an AR-15? You mean you don't know? So what kind of reporter are you? It's easy! It's a great friggen gun!" - Alan Korwin, 2015 |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
CA Ex-Pat US Navy Veteran NRA Life Member Springfield Armory & Smith&Wesson & Remington & Henry & Marlin ------------------------------------ "Why does anyone need an AR-15? You mean you don't know? So what kind of reporter are you? It's easy! It's a great friggen gun!" - Alan Korwin, 2015 |
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Update 8/18/2017 - favorable ruling. See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1368261
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
A good and proper ruling. I note that this case has been pending around four years already, and is a long way from over. I also assume that the DOJ will appeal at some point, but this time the appeal will be to the generally conservative Third district, not the Ninth Circuit. And even if there is no refund of fees, we may see a reduction to the limits imposed by the law, and that would be a good thing, even if years away.
|
#58
|
||||
|
||||
Can we do our own analysis to show what a reasonable fee might look like?
God knows the State has set up a "Rube Goldberg", convoluted, purposefully labor intensive process that does nothing to provide superior identification of prohibited persons than alternative sources like NICs. My concern is that DOJ will get away with passing off their "mess" and the Court will rubber stamp their "analysis"
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Oh and - the DOJ already has a track record of acting in bad faith. One will recall Judge Ishi giving them 6 months to prepare alternatives to the 10-day wait for selected folks and during that time they did nothing to comply.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
That's 15mil $ should be confiscated and used to pay the costs for future dros's.
Free dros frees forever
__________________
Scrödinger's Gun Case: the serial number inside is in a state of quantum flux and can appear in different random states unrelating to how a person views it. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Now that the DOJ has egg on there face again it might be coming out that all these laws their creating has nothing to do with safety at all but to just get money for the State of California from our pockets. Just like the LA's red light cameras for years toting driver safety and now that they can't pay employees to process the tickets the whole issue is dropped and without anything said what happened to the safety report? Again it give us the feeling it was designed to get our money only and had noting to do with safety at all. Mail Clerk |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Go NRA ILA...
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life. John 3:16 NRA,,, Lifer United Air Epic Fail Video ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Everything else that CA does in regard to background checks they do simply because they want to.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler |
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We have to offer a solution that does not involve CA DOJ or they will kill it with incompetence
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler Last edited by dustoff31; 08-30-2017 at 9:56 PM.. |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
I don't know whether you addressed the part about NICS not wanting us....but okay. I'd rather pump some $$ to NICS for additional servers/broadband - it couldn't be more than cents on the firearm tranaction
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As far as NICS checks go, the only difference between you and me (CA and AZ) in that respect is that when you buy a gun, CA DOJ contacts NICS, along with all their other nonsense during the 10 day penalty box session. In AZ, the FFL calls them up and gets an answer immediately. The reason CA does this is because they want to. That is, they told the FBI that they wanted all NICS funneled through them. A few states do this. Some states only act as POC for handguns but not long guns. Most states don't even get involved in it and just let the FFLs take care of it. Whichever direction is taken is entirely up to the state concerned.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Only three since the initial ruling, issued in August 2017, but there was a trial in a second phase that came after, with judgment entered in April 2019. Plaintiff's opening brief was filed this past February, and Respondent State's brief just recently. The second phase determined that DROS fees are not a tax, which is a pretty important ruling, especially after fees were just bumped up. the Court also found that DIJ had "adequately" demonstrated its use of the money.
|
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Ridiculous how this blatant theft of overcharged fees is still mired in the courts after 7 years
Nobody in the rest of the country is aware of this particular chapter of Horrible Harris' reign. In particular how the stolen fees were used to create confiscation squads that were rife with errors. In addition the misappropriated funds were quickly blown barely putting a dent in the backlog
__________________
|
#73
|
||||
|
||||
https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca....9SLDtOCg%3D%3D
There was an oral argument for this case today via videoconference (with CRPA represented by Sean Brady), but it seems the CA 3rd Appellate District doesn't post archived videos? It was through Blue Jeans video conferencing app; the public can attend but it seems they only post the links when the oral arguments are live, according to this page. Hopefully we did well. |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
LOSS on 3/26/21
https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca....9SLDtOCg%3D%3D Opinion which is Unpublished: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C089655.PDF Lower court decision affirmed (LOSS for us). Parties bear their own costs. Some claims dismissed as moot (due to bill passage changing the DROS fee), some claims dismissed because the arguments were allegedly incorrectly formatted, which left one claim about improper use of funds pre-bill-passage, which the court said lacked merit. |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Having just read the opinion, I am curious: will futher appeals in this case cover A.B. 1669 such that causes of action related to it are not so easily dismissed at the next level or would another suit need to be filed from scratch in order to attack 1669 and 819?
(IANAL so my apologies if that’s a dumb question.) |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Mmmmmm... I think it'd have to be another challenge. According to The Court many of the constitutional appellate contentions were either improperly structured and/or mooted by the passage of AB-1669, and the plaintiffs (us) conceded that, leaving the court to then answer only one question in the opinion, which they did, and did not rule in our favor saying the final contention lacked merit. As such if you were going to challenge AB 1669 it'd have to be a different case; and I'm not sure what basis you'd want to challenge it on. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|