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
  #41  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:18 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AceGirlsHusband View Post
A court ordering DOJ to review itself should produce a fair result, yes?

Of course it will be a "fair result".

Just like the IRS investigated Lois Lerner,...... and found no wrong doing.

The State Dept investigated Hitlery,...... and found no wrong doing.

And the US-DOJ investigated Eric O-holder,...... and found no wrong doing.

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:57 PM
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 544
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-24-2017, 3:25 PM
Old Scribe's Avatar
Old Scribe Old Scribe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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

"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
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-24-2017, 3:32 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,885
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-24-2017, 7:15 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Scribe View Post
Factoid: Some in DOJ are squirming in there chairs and it isn't their tight underwear.

Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-24-2017, 7:53 PM
Spyder's Avatar
Spyder Spyder is offline
Just me, baby. Just me.
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a shack, in the woods
Posts: 10,351
iTrader: 91 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
How much is it in other states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcchmbrs View Post
NCIC back in TN was $10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq_wizzard View Post
$0.00 in Idaho

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
There is no DROS in AZ. The NICS check costs zero dollars.
Precisely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallShark View Post
if i can get refund for my DROS, about 20, all the money will go to CRPA
Same here. But I've got many more than 20!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-25-2017, 8:31 AM
humble servant's Avatar
humble servant humble servant is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bass ackwards
Posts: 163
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkshire View Post
it should be $0 tops.
Exactly. In my opinion they shouldn't even be involved.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-25-2017, 8:56 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,038
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
Excellent work!

Is there any possibility the DOJ could eventually be forced to repay some of those funds to the gun purchasers?
No, administrative 'expenses' and then the lawyers will take the rest as fees.

Wake up and smell the corruption, DOJ my @ss, more like DOC for corruption.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-25-2017, 3:01 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by big red View Post
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.
Exactly - I'll happily keep paying my mandatory $19 per transaction if that's where it goes
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-25-2017, 8:55 PM
robertkjjj's Avatar
robertkjjj robertkjjj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 675
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

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.

"It's called the Bill Of Rights. Not the Bill of Needs."

Acronyms
AR-15 Primer
CA firearms laws timeline
BLM land maps
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-25-2017, 9:08 PM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,659
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AceGirlsHusband View Post
A court ordering DOJ to review itself should produce a fair result, yes?
Yep. It should yield just about the same results as LE or any other government agency investigating themselves.
__________________
“In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ―George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-25-2017, 9:14 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertkjjj View Post
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.
I don't know why you care, you take every opportunity you can to proclaim that you ignore all gun laws anyways. So whatever new laws get passed or old ones get tossed, is irrelevant to you... unless you've changed your mind today and decided gun laws actually do affect you? DROS fees shouldn't affect you since you don't buy guns the way the law requires you to anyways, or is that a law you follow?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-05-2017, 9:43 AM
timtlc timtlc is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-06-2017, 7:04 AM
OrwellianEra's Avatar
OrwellianEra OrwellianEra is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Gold Country
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-06-2017, 7:10 AM
toddytguns toddytguns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Orwellian we are talking about the state. This thread is about the CA DOJ's misuse of DROS fees, which are state mandated fees.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-29-2017, 7:32 AM
Mail Clerk Mail Clerk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
No, administrative 'expenses' and then the lawyers will take the rest as fees.

Wake up and smell the corruption, DOJ my @ss, more like DOC for corruption.
Jimi Jah,


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
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-29-2017, 9:15 AM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,800
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I don't know why you care, you take every opportunity you can to proclaim that you ignore all gun laws anyways. So whatever new laws get passed or old ones get tossed, is irrelevant to you... unless you've changed your mind today and decided gun laws actually do affect you? DROS fees shouldn't affect you since you don't buy guns the way the law requires you to anyways, or is that a law you follow?
This.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
The architects of the assault weapon bans ... are simply trying to fight the Culture War. And we can't win, not in California anyway because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you.
Crime rate per 100k people
General population: 3,817
Police officers: 108
Legal CCW: 18
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 10:46 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.