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 11-11-2019, 4:36 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Roe v. United States, EDCA - Gun bans after certain mental health holds

Roe v. United States
Eastern District of California
Judge: Dale Drozd
1:19-cv-00270


From the complaint:

Quote:
This is an action to challenge the policies, practices, customs, and procedures of either (or both) the United States Government and the State of California in their interpretation and implementation of statutory law and various regulations relating to exercising Second Amendment rights by persons; who at one time in their life, were subject to some version of a mental health hold, and for whom there is no current, constitutionally valid finding that they are a danger to themselves or others.

To the extent that these government entities are correctly interpreting federal and/or state law, this suit seeks a judgment from this Court declaring those statutes and/or regulations violate the United States Constitution to the extent those laws and regulations impose a lifetime ban on exercising a fundamental right, with no mechanism for restoration of that right.

The exact date of JANE ROE #1's alleged mental health hold is unknown, but probably occurred in 1988/1989.

JANE ROE #1was living with her parents in New Jersey at the time. She was 15 or 16years old. She believes the hospital where she was treated was Summit Oaks Hospital in Summit, New Jersey.

Upon inquiry by JANE ROE #1 the hospital in question could provide no record of her being a patient there at any time. Nor does the hospital have any records of any adjudication, or due process hearing, relating to any commitment or mental health pathology.

JANE ROE #1 was a minor at the time of the treatment. She does not recall being appointed an attorney or guardian ad litem. She does not recall being given notice of a hearing, its consequences, nor being advised of appellate rights.

JANE ROE #1 attempted to purchase a firearm in January of 2015. She was denied a purchase based on the California Background Check System for firearm purchases which utilizes federal resources and applies federal law in addition to state law in determining firearm purchase eligibility.

A February 10, 2015 letter from the California Department of Justice -Bureau of Firearms (CA-DOJ-BOF) indicates that JANE ROE #1 has no criminal history that would disqualify her from exercising her Second Amendment rights.

A February 14,2015 letter from the CA-DOJ-BOF indicates that the Federal Bureau of Investigations - National Instant Check System (FBI-NICS) database is the cause of the denial.

JANE ROE #1 was honorably discharged from the United States Army on or about January 14, 1998. During her service she was awarded: Army Achievement Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and Army Service Ribbon. She received firearm training in the United States Army and used various small arms while on active duty.

JANE ROE #1 desires to exercise her Second Amendments rights to acquire, keep and bear firearms, but is being prevented from doing so by the actions of the Defendants.
District Court:

2/25/19: Complaint

3/31/20: First Amended Complaint



Last edited by FirearmFino; 02-24-2021 at 6:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-12-2019, 7:01 AM
newbutold newbutold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: CA
Posts: 1,952
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I hope she is well and stable. Good luck.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Robert J. Hanlon

No more dems, rinos, commies, , pinkos, crooks, pedos, frauds, idiots, lunatics, wanna-be dictators, traitors, old fools, or kleptocratic thieves for President from any party.

The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. Donald J. Trump 1/7/21
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-12-2019, 2:49 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by newbutold View Post
I hope she is well and stable. Good luck.
successful military service that she is. Which is the point really.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-13-2019, 4:54 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

the 925a claim should get them what they need
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/925A

Last edited by wolfwood; 11-13-2019 at 7:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-20-2019, 5:08 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

MINUTES (TEXT Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/20/2019: STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Counsel for Plaintiffs Jane Roe #1, Jane Roe #2, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, John Doe #4, John Doe #5, John Doe #6, and Second Amendment Foundation: Donald Kilmer appeared by telephone - present. Counsel for Defendants United States of America, United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, William Barr, Christopher Wray, and Thomas Brandon: James Bickford appeared by telephone - present. Counsel for Defendant Xavier Becerra: Nelson Richards appeared by telephone present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off the record. (Valdez, E) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-23-2019, 4:42 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): This Court held a STATUS CONFERENCE on November 20, 2019. As discussed at the conference, discovery is open in this action. The parties represented that they intend to discuss a stipulation to amend the complaint and a stipulation to allow Plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously. Defendants agreed to provide initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Plaintiffs represented that their initial disclosures have already been provided. The Court SETS a FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE for January 22, 2020 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe to discuss the status of this action, including the status of amendment of the complaint, Plaintiffs' request to proceed pseudonymously, and Defendants' initial disclosures. Minute order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/22/2019. (Valdez, E) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-22-2020, 4:07 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

STIPULATION and ORDER to Re-Calendar Status Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/21/2020. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, and cause appearing, the Status Conference currently set for January 22, 2020, is HEREBY CONTINUED to February 25, 2020, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before the undersigned.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...51465.28.0.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-26-2020, 2:12 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): This Court held a STATUS CONFERENCE on February 25, 2020. The parties discussed the status of this action with the Court and Plaintiffs' counsel confirmed that he received initial disclosures from Defendants. The parties have also received the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously (Doc. 30 ) and the Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of California (Doc. 29 ). Discovery is open and the parties indicated that they are meeting and conferring to determine whether they may stipulate to any facts in order to streamline discovery and motion practice. Following a discussion regarding Plaintiffs' intent to amend the complaint, the parties agreed to a deadline and briefing schedule for amendment of the pleadings. Accordingly, any stipulated amendments or motions to amend the pleadings shall be filed by March 16, 2020, and set before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. Any opposition to a motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed by April 6, 2020, and any reply shall be filed by April 13, 2020. The matter will then be deemed submitted upon the record and briefs pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (See Doc. 29 .) The Court SETS a FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE for May 13, 2020 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe to discuss the status of this action, including the status of amendment of the complaint, and to determine whether a scheduling conference may be reset.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-26-2020, 2:57 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I kinda like this case. Obviously I don't know all the details as the confidentiality will likely keep some stuff hidden forever.

But one thing I'd add? IIRC a medical institution is only required to keep a copy of their medical record for 7 years once it goes inactive.

I believe this is still the case but now that we have electronic records they tend to be forever (I'm not sure that is a good thing). There may be format or software changes which result in the record sort of disappearing but that is not certain.

But given the time frame for Jane Roe, the place where she may have had the incident resulting in an un-adjudicated loss of her right probably has no records at all which would support or not support the abridging of her rights. Those records have likely not existed for literally decades.

So at this time no one can go back and look at the details of the case way back when and determine exactly what happened.

The way I see it (from the information currently available) the government may not be able to support their case beyond an assertion that they can assume that they followed procedures at the time to deny her rights for some reason which they probably can no longer support.

Fascinating!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-24-2021, 6:50 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF JOHN DOE #6 and WAIVER OF COSTS

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SUPPLMENTAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-25-2021, 7:25 AM
flyer898's Avatar
flyer898 flyer898 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Limbo
Posts: 1,937
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

It seems to me government should have the burden of establishing the existence of a disqualification from exercise of a fundamental right by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
__________________
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain
"One argues to a judge, one does not argue with a judge." Me
"Never argue unless you are getting paid." CDAA
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw
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 12:16 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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