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 10-19-2021, 10:15 AM
MCubeiro's Avatar
MCubeiro MCubeiro is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 95
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Wallingford v. Bonta (Challenge to California Restraining Order Firearm Prohibition)

Hello Calguns! I wanted to share this press release with you all to inform you about this case our office recently filed. As published on the Second Amendment Law Center's website and republished on Ammoland.com.


SECOND AMENDMENT LAW CENTER, CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, ANNOUNCE SUPPORT OF LAWSUIT CHALLENGING RESTRAINING ORDER FIREARM PROHIBITION

Imagine living in the same house with your spouse for over 50 years. Your front lawn has a sapling that, over the course of time, has grown into a beautifully tall tree. But the neighbor next door who moved in just a few years ago doesn’t like the tree, so she conspires to falsely accuse you of assault and battery after you refuse to remove it. You get arrested as a result. She then seeks a restraining order against you based on her false allegations, files both a civil case and small claims case against you, and to top it all off, California law takes away your right to own or possess firearms in connection with the restraining order—before you even have a chance to respond.

Think it can’t happen? Well, that is exactly what happened to Richard and Miranda Wallingford. Only their story gets much, much worse.

As a result of their new neighbor’s false allegations, the Wallingfords hired a home-security company to install cameras on their property. Their purpose was to prevent the neighbor from making additional false allegations in the future. Immediately after installation (but before a hearing on the restraining order petition was held), the cameras captured the neighbor making threatening gestures and attempting to damage the Wallingford’s tree. These images were shown to the court at the restraining order hearing, which ultimately concluded that the Wallingfords did nothing wrong and dismissed the petition against them. The criminal assault and battery investigation was dropped by the police, both the small claims case and civil case were dismissed, and the Wallingford’s firearm rights were also reinstated.

This is where the Wallingford’s horror story should have ended.

At the restraining order hearing, the Wallingfords went on record to state they simply wanted to put the matter behind them and ask the neighbor to cease and desist her hostile behavior. That of course did not happen. Late in the evening on the same day the neighbor’s civil case was dismissed, the security cameras captured the neighbor coming onto the Wallingford’s property and pouring bleach on the tree. The Wallingfords called the police, but the police took no action.

The neighbor’s behavior continued to escalate. She was recorded yelling verbal threats of violence from her front yard and making several throat-slitting gestures directed at the Wallingford’s cameras, at least one of which involved the use of a knife or similar cutting instrument. Now in fear for their personal safety, and seeing no other option at this point, the Wallingfords filed a petition seeking a restraining order against the neighbor.


Just one of several sets of images of the Wallingford’s neighbor standing in her front yard making threating gestures in full view of the public neighborhood.

But before a hearing on the Wallingford’s petition is held, the neighbor again files a petition seeking a restraining order against the Wallingfords. This time, the neighbor claimed the Wallingford’s security cameras constituted harassment while also raising the same allegations of assault that were previously ruled on and dismissed.

Astoundingly, the court granted the neighbor a temporary restraining order, resulting in the Wallingford’s once again losing their Second Amendment rights until a formal hearing could be held. Worse still, the court later recognized that it mistakenly read the neighbor’s petition to include new allegations of assault—not the same allegations raised previously. Had it not made this mistake, it would not have issued a temporary restraining order. Nevertheless, the court refused to dissolve the temporary restraining order until a formal hearing could be held 60 days later.

Upon first learning of their neighbor’s complaint about their security cameras, the Wallingford’s immediately repositioned the cameras to ensure only their property was in the cameras’ field of view. They did so despite the areas of the neighbor’s property also being captured were publicly visible from street.

Although the court ultimately granted the Wallingford’s petition for a restraining order against the neighbor because it found “no legitimate purpose to making a throat-slashing gesture towards [the Wallingford’s] security cameras, or to mooning the cameras, spraying the cameras with water, or other similar conduct,” the court also found the Wallingford’s security cameras constituted harassment. But the court also expressly noted the cameras “have since been repositioned such that they point only at areas of the [neighbor’s] residence in public view, which the court finds acceptable.” Nevertheless, the court issued a three-year restraining order against them—despite no other findings of harassing behavior or that the Wallingfords are a danger to the public or to themselves. What’s more, there was no evidence that the Wallingfords were directly involved in the installation of the cameras to begin with.

As a result of the restraining order issued against them, California law prohibits the Wallingfords from owning or possessing firearms for its entire duration. All because the Wallingfords took the steps any reasonable person likely would have taken to protect themselves after being falsely accused and harassed by a vile and hostile neighbor. And to this day, the Wallingford’s neighbor continues to harass and intimidate the Wallingfords, with no action being taken by law enforcement against her despite multiple 911 calls and the existence of a restraining order against the neighbor.

The Second Amendment Law Center and the California Rifle & Pistol Association are proud to support the Wallingfords in a new lawsuit challenging California’s laws prohibiting them from owning or possessing firearms due to the restraining order issued against them. The Wallingfords, through their legal counsel, are seeking an injunction against the prohibition while the lawsuit is litigated. A hearing on the Wallingfords request for an injunction is currently scheduled for November 1, 2021.

To learn more about the Second Amendment Law Center, the premier Second Amendment advocacy and legal resource center committed to the preservation and protection of the Second Amendment or to donate to causes like this, click here.

And be sure to subscribe to CPRA alerts to stay up-to-date on the Wallingford’s case and other important Second Amendment litigation by visiting https://crpa.org/.
__________________


NRA Certified Instructor- Pistol, Rifle, PPITH, PPOTH, Metallic Cartridge Reloading, Home Firearm Safety, Refuse to be a Victim
NRA Range Safety Officer

NRA Patriot Life Member - Benefactor Level
CRPA Life Member
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-20-2021, 12:04 PM
NorCalRT NorCalRT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,263
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Good luck!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-20-2021, 2:23 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Thumbs up

Thanks for the info Matt.

Keep swinging. This NO DUE PROCESS red flag crap gotta go.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-20-2021, 2:56 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beyond the reach...
Posts: 3,790
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Thanks for the info Matt.

Keep swinging. This NO DUE PROCESS red flag crap gotta go.
This. It is important that the court recognize the abuse that takes place because of these laws the circumvent due process. What if things unfolded differently after the first restraining order and the neighbor came after them on their property with a knife instead of just gesturing?
__________________
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 10-20-2021, 4:00 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,094
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think that it is important to understand that, from what I can gather, this is NOT a case under California's red flag law, but is instead a case under the standard TRO for civil harassment. TROs under these statutes ALSO allow the confiscation of firearms prior to and up to the time of a hearing, as well as a lengthier prohibition on possession after hearing. I was surprised however, that the hearing was held 60 days leter--these are supposed to be expedited unless the parties agree to a continuance.

Further, although the trial court probably erred in issuing the restraining order, defendants' firearm prohibition was issued WITH due process of law, i.e., AFTER a hearing. What I see this as is the Courts' bias towards issuing mutual restraining orders, thus preventing the parties on both sides from possessing firearms. In fact, it is common for courts to ask the parties to stipulate to joint restraining orders, as this is more likely to keep the peace.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-20-2021, 9:59 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Would you be happier with my post had I used "Red Flaggish" as descriptive adjective.

Quote:
TROs under these statutes ALSO allow the confiscation of firearms prior to and up to the time of a hearing,
So in essence a "Red Flaggish" statute, sans the Red Flag Title. That allows denial of citizen's constitutional rights. Without a judicial hearing.

That doesn't quite fit the definition of "Due Process" by the 'innocent until proven guilty" standard.

The judge issued a restraining order that denied the Wallingford’s 2A rights, TWICE, based solely on bogus allegations, that the court knew to be bogus.

That judge is nothing but an inept fool. Or an activist with an agenda. Pick One, or both.

That crap gotta go.

Last edited by pacrat; 10-20-2021 at 10:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-21-2021, 1:12 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,094
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Would you be happier with my post had I used "Red Flaggish" as descriptive adjective.



So in essence a "Red Flaggish" statute, sans the Red Flag Title. That allows denial of citizen's constitutional rights. Without a judicial hearing.

That doesn't quite fit the definition of "Due Process" by the 'innocent until proven guilty" standard.

The judge issued a restraining order that denied the Wallingford’s 2A rights, TWICE, based solely on bogus allegations, that the court knew to be bogus.

That judge is nothing but an inept fool. Or an activist with an agenda. Pick One, or both.

That crap gotta go.
Harassment TROs have been around for a very long time. These are civil cases (with a burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence), not criminal cases, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. And gun confiscation prior to a contested hearing have been unsuccessfully challenged on due process grounds repeatedly, the appellate courts satisfied that the prompt hearing on the merits protects due process rights. Trial courts are bound by those decisions, so it is a loser every time. A judge hearing only one side of the story on a sworn declaration for a temporary order will almost always act to preserve the peace and to prevent future harm by granting the temporary order. However, hearings are supposed to be heard within 21 days because of due process concerns.

Last edited by TruOil; 10-21-2021 at 1:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-21-2021, 4:31 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Harassment TROs have been around for a very long time. These are civil cases (with a burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence), not criminal cases, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. And gun confiscation prior to a contested hearing have been unsuccessfully challenged on due process grounds repeatedly, the appellate courts satisfied that the prompt hearing on the merits protects due process rights. Trial courts are bound by those decisions, so it is a loser every time. A judge hearing only one side of the story on a sworn declaration for a temporary order will almost always act to preserve the peace and to prevent future harm by granting the temporary order. However, hearings are supposed to be heard within 21 days because of due process concerns.
as to BOLDED............ JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. Even if for 21 days.

Yes, it is a fact that such statutes exist, and have for a long time. My contention and beliefs are that they shouldn't, and never should have!

Preemptive confiscations, just in case someone MAY commit a crime sometime in the future. Based solely on unsupported allegations is BS.

From OP ...
"Imagine living in the same house with your spouse for over 50 years."

Considering that few, if any, couples purchase a home before they are at least in their 20s. That squarely places the Wallingfords in the elderly deomgraphic.

The judge based solely on an allegation. Preemptively removed from them the ability to defend themselves. If the need of Self Defense should arise during that 3 weeks.

Then he stretched it to 3 yrs still based on the same unfounded allegations.

Quote:
Nevertheless, the court issued a three-year restraining order against them—despite no other findings of harassing behavior or that the Wallingfords are a danger to the public or to themselves.
A WRONG, that was wrongly condoned by previous courts. DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.

"THAT CRAP GOTTA GO!"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-22-2021, 10:36 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,094
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
as to BOLDED............ JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. Even if for 21 days.

Yes, it is a fact that such statutes exist, and have for a long time. My contention and beliefs are that they shouldn't, and never should have!

Preemptive confiscations, just in case someone MAY commit a crime sometime in the future. Based solely on unsupported allegations is BS.

From OP ...
"Imagine living in the same house with your spouse for over 50 years."

Considering that few, if any, couples purchase a home before they are at least in their 20s. That squarely places the Wallingfords in the elderly deomgraphic.

The judge based solely on an allegation. Preemptively removed from them the ability to defend themselves. If the need of Self Defense should arise during that 3 weeks.

Then he stretched it to 3 yrs still based on the same unfounded allegations.



A WRONG, that was wrongly condoned by previous courts. DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.

"THAT CRAP GOTTA GO!"
I don't disagree that the judge got it wrong. All I am saying that the judgement will not be overturned due to a lack of due process.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-22-2021, 2:00 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I don't disagree that the judge got it wrong. All I am saying that the judgement will not be overturned due to a lack of due process.
Quote:
The Second Amendment Law Center and the California Rifle & Pistol Association are proud to support the Wallingfords in a new lawsuit challenging California’s laws prohibiting them from owning or possessing firearms due to the restraining order issued against them. The Wallingfords, through their legal counsel, are seeking an injunction against the prohibition while the lawsuit is litigated. A hearing on the Wallingfords request for an injunction is currently scheduled for November 1, 2021.
The links in the above quote are DOWN for maintenance. So further info is unavailable.

I don't disagree with you. I applaud the plaintiffs for fighting against biased laws that make a farce of ACTUAL DUE PROCESS by negating due process in the name of supposed safety.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-27-2021, 6:26 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 120
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Red flag laws are pure bull**** makes anyone who owns a firearm a target.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-28-2021, 9:32 PM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Paso Robles, CA
Posts: 301
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

And...the judge dismissed the case without a hearing, based solely on the petitions.

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status...12986066391045
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-28-2021, 10:57 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...30193.23.0.pdf

Judge David O Carter .... [slick Willy appointee]

How did an Orange County [Huntington Bch] case not be heard in So District?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-06-2021, 12:41 PM
johncage johncage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 183
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

this is the ultimate goal of idiocracy and regression towards the mean. so many people involved in the legal system who aren't even qualified to scrub toilets. that judge should be out on the corner begging for food instead of defiling the courts with his retardation
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-06-2021, 1:19 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,823
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...30193.23.0.pdf

Judge David O Carter .... [slick Willy appointee]

How did an Orange County [Huntington Bch] case not be heard in So District?
Because Huntington Beach ain't in the Southern District.

Please check out the regional boundaries if the Federal Court Districts and make sure you get the difference between Districts and Divisions in the organization of the Federal Courts. The Southern District of California encompasses San Diego county and its surrounding inland counties south of Riverside County.

The Central District of California encompasses San Bernardino County and Riverside County within its Eastern Division, Orange County within its Southern Division and Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties within its Western Division.

Please note that this case was heard by Judge Carter, who sits in the Southern Division of the Central District (Courtroom located in Santa Ana) and that would be the appropriate location to hear a Huntington Beach case.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RickD427; 11-06-2021 at 1:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-06-2021, 2:34 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Because Huntington Beach ain't in the Southern District.

Please check out the regional boundaries if the Federal Court Districts and make sure you get the difference between Districts and Divisions in the organization of the Federal Courts. The Southern District of California encompasses San Diego county and its surrounding inland counties south of Riverside County.

The Central District of California encompasses San Bernardino County and Riverside County within its Eastern Division, Orange County within its Southern Division and Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties within its Western Division.

Please note that this case was heard by Judge Carter, who sits in the Southern Division of the Central District (Courtroom located in Santa Ana) and that would be the appropriate location to hear a Huntington Beach case.
Thanks Rick. Now it is clear as mud. How a case filed ONE Cnty away from the Mexican border. Is heard in the Central District.

Quote:
The Southern District of California encompasses San Diego county and its surrounding inland counties south of Riverside County.
Out of the 58 counties in Ca. So the Southern District is only 2 counties that Border Mexico.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-06-2021, 3:07 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,823
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Thanks Rick. Now it is clear as mud. How a case filed ONE Cnty away from the Mexican border. Is heard in the Central District.
You're most welcome

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Out of the 58 counties in Ca. So the Southern District is only 2 counties that Border Mexico.
Yup, only two counties (San Diego and Imperial)
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-14-2021, 8:02 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,542
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I'm ready to defund this banana republic crap and every one of it's machinations. Why are we fighting the defund movement?

The whole justice system is corrupted.
__________________
WingDings HQ Contributor - Lifetime

Quote:
Q is a Disinformation PsyOp to make the right look/sound crazy - Sgt J Beezy
Quote:
Deceit only gains leverage from cooperation - LBDamned
Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
Quote:
It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's impossible to win an argument with a stupid person - Whitefang
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-29-2021, 3:59 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 393
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
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 6:42 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical