Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=330)
-   -   Linton v Becerra (US Dist Ct Nor Cal, 12/2018) (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1504694)

darkwater34 01-19-2019 8:46 AM

Linton v Becerra (US Dist Ct Nor Cal, 12/2018)
 
I seen this post at FPC I know it is a recently filed case, But has anybody else seen it apparently they are looking for similar clients.

FirearmFino 08-21-2019 9:15 PM

A hearing is scheduled for tomorrow on the state's motion to dismiss:
Quote:

ORDER. The case management conference and the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 12, are continued to August 22, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. A joint case management statement is due August 15, 2019. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/22/2019. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF)
For more about this case:

SAF Press Release

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and four other rights groups have joined in a lawsuit against the State of California for preventing individuals from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Joining SAF are the Firearms Policy Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, the Madison Society Foundation and the Calguns Foundation. They are supporting individual plaintiffs Paul McKinley Stewart and Chad Linton, who contend that non-violent felony convictions years ago have been set aside or vacated, yet the State of California refuses to allow them to purchase firearms.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Named as defendants are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra; Martin Horan, the chief of the state Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms; and Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson. The case is known as Linton v. Becerra.

“SAF took an interest in this case for the specific reason that California once again is trying to prevent or disqualify as many citizens as possible from exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “There doesn’t appear to be any other reason for the state to not recognize rights restorations to either Linton or Stewart even though their rights have been restored by courts in Arizona and Washington.”

Attorney George M. Lee, who represents the plaintiffs, observed, “The State (California) doesn’t get to pick and choose which judgments of other states it will honor, and which it will ignore, because it doesn’t approve of firearms ownership. Granting full faith and credit to other court judgments is part of the bargain of being one of these United States.”

The cases involving both individual plaintiffs happened decades ago, and have been cleared by courts the states in which they occurred. Both plaintiffs have been good citizens in their respective California communities.

“This is just another example of California’s animosity toward the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb said.

The complaint with exibits

This case is in the Northern District of California and is assigned to Judge Donato.

wolfwood 08-22-2019 6:22 AM

here is the motion to dismiss

https://www.scribd.com/document/4227...ion-to-Dismiss


opposition by saf attorney George Lee
https://www.scribd.com/document/4227...ion-to-Dismiss

reply
https://www.scribd.com/document/4227...ion-to-Dismiss

Epaphroditus 08-22-2019 9:16 AM

Taking cases with felons seems counterproductive when there's plenty of non-felons with 2A issues. Still got the stink of Miller lingering. It seems the courts has no problem handing onerous decisions against felons so why risk it?

homelessdude 08-22-2019 1:48 PM

ex felons. At least in the rest of the United States. Ca. makes it's own infringments.

BryMan92 08-22-2019 2:14 PM

I see this as important at helping contour the "long-standing" prohibitions outlined in Heller.

darkwater34 08-23-2019 12:41 PM

Does anyone know the out come of yesterday's hearing?

librarian72 08-23-2019 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus (Post 23335539)
Taking cases with felons...

That's the point. The judgments have been set aside and/or vacated. They are not felons.

FirearmFino 08-23-2019 6:22 PM

Civil Minutes:

Quote:

The motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 12, raises issues best addressed in summary judgment proceedings. The motion is terminated without prejudice so that the parties may pursue summary judgment. Fact discovery will close on April 22, 2020. Plaintiffs’ opening summary judgment brief is due by June 22, 2020. Defendant’s opposition is due by August 21, 2020.

The parties are directed to start settlement discussions.

darkwater34 08-28-2019 8:54 AM

So does this means that everything including 11th immunity was denied to the defendants and the plaintiffs can sue for their firearm rights returned and also monetary compensation?

It appears that defendants could be in violation of 241 and 242 of the Federal Statues.

My bad here is the full description taken from the F.B.I website of the above post:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

darkwater34 09-08-2019 6:47 PM

Looks like this case may only payoff for the plaintiffs. Just curious as how much the defendants would be willing to spend to keep them from going to prison. Also curious to what kind of price tag one puts on their 2A rights it is hard to phanthom but mine would be worth aan astronomical amount, I think a blank check is in order on this one. What ever the settlement agreament we may never know.

HowardW56 09-08-2019 8:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkwater34 (Post 23392099)
Looks like this case may only payoff for the plaintiffs. Just curious as how much the defendants would be willing to spend to keep them from going to prison. Also curious to what kind of price tag one puts on their 2A rights it is hard to phanthom but mine would be worth aan astronomical amount, I think a blank check is in order on this one. What ever the settlement agreament we may never know.

The complaint is seeking the have the policy declared unconstitutional as it applies to the plaintiffs and others similarly situated....

darkwater34 09-08-2019 11:22 PM

Then this is very cool I am no longer totally disappointed. It looks like this could take up to a year before it goes back to court.

darkwater34 09-08-2019 11:28 PM

Just saying it is cool that this case does not just benefit two individuals as in some cases it usually does.

darkwater34 09-13-2019 9:31 AM

Curious if the judge hands over an indictment to a gran jury in August 2020. We all know they are going to drag this out to the very end.

gunuser17 09-14-2019 7:27 PM

Here, the criminal case is over and, as I understand it, this is a civil case seeking the restoration of rights. No indictment can come out of this case. First, judges do not indict anyone. A prosecutor presents a case to a grand jury and the grand jury either indicts or does not. A civil case like this has nothing to do with a criminal indictment. However, if during a civil case, the judge hearing the case believes that someone committed a crime, such as not telling the truth on the stand, the judge can refer that matter to the prosecutor for potential prosecution.

darkwater34 09-15-2019 8:50 AM

I stand educated thanks

darkwater34 09-21-2019 1:14 AM

I noticed there is some new action in this case does anyone have any new information as the recent two filings by the defendants?

FirearmFino 09-22-2019 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkwater34 (Post 23432179)
I noticed there is some new action in this case does anyone have any new information as the recent two filings by the defendants?

Stipulation and Proposed Order: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...36229.27.0.pdf

Answer to Complaint: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...36229.28.0.pdf

darkwater34 09-23-2019 12:09 AM

I am I wrong it looks like this may be over for the plaintiffs

gunuser17 09-23-2019 9:07 AM

I don't see that anything is over. The court has now set a scheduling order that calls for discovery and then motions for summary judgment next year. Apparently the parties and the court agree that there are no real issues as to any facts and that this is purely a legal fight over laws and constitutional issues. Unless motions are filed for summary judgment early, I would not expect any decision in less than about 18 months and then appeals after that.

darkwater34 09-23-2019 10:08 PM

I guesse it is best to standby and see what happens, But I think you are right about the appeals with the exception of this ending up being filed in the 9th District. Maybe by then Trump will have stacked the bench with more conservative Judges Like Bret Kavanaugh.

darkwater34 10-12-2019 2:34 PM

Looks like most definitely this case is going to be settled out of court considering the recent ruling in the case.

Dirtlaw 10-12-2019 2:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkwater34 (Post 23437831)
I am I wrong it looks like this may be over for the plaintiffs


Depends on the Judge. I've only glanced at this but as I understand it he's encouraging motions for summary judgment by both sides. Let's face it -- those are never easy unless it's a clear cut case. So, he's thinking one side or the other can carry the burden? Fine. Which one does he favor? Tell me about the Judge.

Supersapper 10-12-2019 4:32 PM

Fascinating how Becerra and his little posse want to count the felony conviction from the other state where it was committed as a bar to purchasing firearms in CA but refuse to recognize the restoration of those rights by that state.

Only the bad things count. I really hope that slug Becerra gets the legal smack down. Don't know how it would come, or in what form, but I hope it comes.

I'm curious: If the plaintiffs had their records expunged after doing their time, would that have changed the facts in the case?

FirearmFino 11-15-2019 6:52 PM

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint; Declaration of George Lee in Support of Motion; Proposed Order

darkwater34 11-16-2019 8:46 PM

So now they may have one of their own effected by these ant-2nd amendment policies. Mr. Jones may lose his pension and any other benefits entitled to him for 30 years of service. I hope the plaintiffs prevail in this case.

Californio 11-17-2019 9:18 AM

These non-violent Felonies are a Joke. Felonies are supposed to be violence against other Humans. Today almost everything you do in life is a Felony - Accidental Felon has real meaning today and most of us are guilty and we don't even know it. Not the reason my ancestors fought against King George, we may as well have King George and is "ordained by God Elites" back running the show.

darkwater34 11-18-2019 8:21 PM

Sad but true.

FirearmFino 11-27-2019 3:10 PM

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

FirearmFino 11-28-2019 6:05 PM

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF GEORGE M.LEE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

ronlglock 11-29-2019 5:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Californio (Post 23610027)
We may as well have King George and is "ordained by God Elites" back running the show.


The ordained God elites are running the show — at least in CA.

Californio 11-30-2019 1:57 PM

The Cult of Marx does not believe in God. Remember Karl called Religion the Opioid of the People. They ordain themselves which is just as bad as Totalitarian George.:D


Quote:

Originally Posted by ronlglock (Post 23647461)
The ordained God elites are running the show — at least in CA.


ajb78 11-30-2019 8:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirearmFino (Post 23641608)

So after 39 36 years, CA DOJ decides this gentleman is prohibited, despite being a LEO at some point for 30 years? I can't imagine why Basura would be opposed to him joining this lawsuit.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote:

The proposed first amended complaint would add Kendall Jones as a plaintiff. (Pls.’ Not.
& Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl. (Pls.’ Mot.) 4–5, Nov. 15, 2019, ECF No. 30; see also
Proposed First Am. Compl. (Proposed FAC), Nov. 15, 2019, ECF No. 31-1.) Mr. Jones sustained
a felony conviction in Texas in 1980 that was later set aside. (Pls.’ Mot. 4; Proposed FAC
¶¶ 55–56.) He moved to California after the set aside and became a law enforcement officer who
possessed firearms. (Proposed FAC ¶¶ 54, 56–59.) In February 2019, the Department of Justice
Bureau of Firearms informed Mr. Jones that he was not eligible to own or possess a firearm. (Id.
¶ 61.)

Section 101 12-01-2019 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajb78 (Post 23650549)
So after 39 36 years, CA DOJ decides this gentleman is prohibited, despite being a LEO at some point for 30 years? I can't imagine why Basura would be opposed to him joining this lawsuit.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Is this the same Kendall Jones that was range master at the Sacramento gun club and was a CA DoJ Certified instructor?

FirearmFino 12-02-2019 6:31 PM

ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted but no new parties or claims may be added after this date without a showing of good cause and the Court's approval. Plaintiffs' unopposed request to update the name of a corporate plaintiff is granted. Plaintiffs' request for substitution of an official defendant is moot, as the current head of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms was automatically substituted as a defendant in his official capacity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). Signed by Judge James Donato on 12/2/2019

darkwater34 12-03-2019 12:44 AM

This is what happens when you cast a wide net you do not know who is going to get caught up in it. This new plaintiff sheds a whole different light on how CALIFORNIA DOJ implements policy. No telling who else they caught up in this net. I think the reason why A.G. Becerra did not want this plaintiff added is because he could just simply reinstate him without the court ever knowing that CAL DOJ ever made this mistake. Now the Honorable James Donato knows just how harmful this policy is. And hopefully throws the book at them. I say lock all of the defendants up. Maybe an out of court settlement comes earlier than the August 2020 deadline. This new defendant adds an embarrassment to the defendants defense. Among reasons for A.G. Becerra not wanting him added to the case.

darkwater34 12-03-2019 1:08 AM

So also it does not matter to CAL DOJ when the felony conviction was vacated and the reinstatement of firearm possession was taken care of.

wolfwood 12-03-2019 7:04 PM

ORDER. Plaintiffs' 34 motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted but no new parties or claims may be added after this date without a showing of good cause and the Court's approval. Plaintiffs' unopposed request to update the name of a corporate plaintiff is granted. Plaintiffs' request for substitution of an official defendant is moot, as the current head of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms was automatically substituted as a defendant in his official capacity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). Signed by Judge James Donato on 12/2/2019. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2019) (Entered: 12/02/2019)


here is the amended complaint

https://www.scribd.com/document/4381...All-Defendants

FirearmFino 12-16-2019 5:44 PM

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.