Campos v. Bonta (San Diego Superior Court) - Lawsuit over DROS delays

[FirearmFino]

Not even California’s top cop and DOJ can comply with California’s insane gun control laws

Under the DOJ’s policy and practices, a DROS background check remains “pending” past the conclusion of the 10-day waiting period. Essentially, the transaction is left in purgatory until they get around to it and are ‘good and ready’ to finish their job. Not only is that unlawful, it hurts law-abiding gun owners who are trying to exercise their rights.

That’s why attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition, two individual firearm purchasers, Firearms Unknown, a licensed dealer in the San Diego area, Poway Weapons & Gear, also a licensed dealer and indoor range in the San Diego area, San Diego County Gun Owners, Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit and petition for mandamus to challenge this unlawful delay. The case is styled Campos v. Becerra, and you can read the case documents at firearmspolicy.org/campos.

Campos v. Becerra alleges that the defendants/respondents Attorney General Becerra, Bureau of Firearms Director Orick, and the California Department of Justice have violated California law and their own regulations by issuing and enforcing the new policy of delaying gun transfers. If the case is successful, the court will put a stop to the policy and practice, and allow dealers to transfer firearms at the conclusion of the waiting period unless the DOJ can specifically point to a record that indicates the purchaser or transferee is prohibited from possessing and acquiring firearms. While the case seeks for the court to issue a few types of relief, at bottom, this case is about making Attorney General Becerra -- the highest law enforcement officer in the State -- follow the law and his own Department’s published rules.

Case page

Complaint

[pacrat]

New Filing 6-17-22

QUOTE=ShaunCostcoPro;27016959]Many many transactions 15 years+, have current CCW, and nothing that would make me a prohibited person. Was told today by riflegear my recent dros of lowers (mulit-cal) is on delay. First time ever that's happened. I find it odd that a poster here took from a reddit post that an ATF agent said there is new background check process and anecdotally others have posted here other transactions were approved during the same time others were on delay. You would think that wouldn't happen if there was a new background check system that none of us have heard about.
There is a lawsuit pending from "pandemic" DROS delay times: Mauro Campos, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California ("Campos" case) https://www.firearmspolicy.org/campos

There are links in that page to read some of the docket which provides some further info I havent read it all yet, but so far what is perhaps most interesting and shocking is from the State's opposition signed 6-17-22:
"For most purchasers the added delay in clearing a background check was no more than three to five days.
By July 2020, despite continued unprecedented levels of firearms sales, the California Bureau of Firearms (the Bureau) had completely resolved the backlog, which has not recurred. "

Disgusting. I'm going to email FPC this thread to see if it can help their response and show they are lying.

Keep contributing to FPC/CRPA etc and have them field our issues in the legal forum. For all of you angry about this as I am, if you are not contributing to these organizations, we need them more than ever. Keep in mind, just barely and sorely considering our 2a is a disfavored right, the courts when we can get fair decisions are keeping us barely in the game and these groups and their lawyers are really the only ones taking action. At the same time we should be responsible to support them, even if they are not perfect.[/QUOTE]

Guessing it got lost in all the smoke created by the SCOTUS, Bruen case.

[ProfChaos]

Is this the one we've been waiting for that if they delay out to 30, FFLs must release?

[ShaunCostcoPro]

Yes, but the suit also asks after 10 days for release unless the DOJ complies with the law showing there is actually a prohibition in play.

[pacrat]

ProfChaos asked;

Is this the one we've been waiting for that if they delay out to 30, FFLs must release?

Kinda sorta. It is already the law that FFLs release after a 30 day delay. That was done in 2014 when the "undetermined status" was created to address the issue of prior DOJ delay abuses. There NEVER WAS any discretion bestowed on FFLs to deny delivery for an "undetermined" status. Ca pc 28220.

DOJ just refuses to ENFORCE the law that the legislature codified. Because they don't agree with it. And unscrupulous FFLs find it profitable. Because they know that DOJ don't care.

AG Bonta even REMOVED the LIE that KAMALA told on the DOJ FAQ page. Which falsely bestowed a discretionary role to FFLs.

Originally Posted by ShaunCostcoPro

Yes, but the suit also asks after 10 days for release unless the DOJ complies with the law showing there is actually a prohibition in play.

^^^RIGHT^^^

And the down side for Ca-DOJ is that if citizens win. It removes the DOJ "policy" justification, of delaying any DROS that they fail to address in the already 10 day period.

Right now, just extrapolating from posters on CG. This unlawful "ploy" of arbitrary delayed status. Is denying thousands of Ca citizens their 2A right of ownership.

[ShaunCostcoPro]

What is interesting also, if I recall from a letter posted on the DROS delay thread, the letter from the DOJ sent to a poster re: his DROS delay has that same language that it is up to the FFL to release on undetermined.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by ShaunCostcoPro

What is interesting also, if I recall from a letter posted on the DROS delay thread, the letter from the DOJ sent to a poster re: his DROS delay has that same language that it is up to the FFL to release on undetermined.

Shaun, when was the letter dated?

Can you dig up a link? Because sometime in the last 2 months Bonta removed that same claim from the DOJ FAQ page. Where it had been since Jan 1, 2014. When Kamaltoe put it there. Same day that pc 28220[4], which codified "undetermined status", went into effect.

[ShaunCostcoPro]

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...&postcount=188

Its an old letter before then from 2019.....

[Creative300]

I did DROS on June 4, 2022 and got delayed. I am being delayed almost a month and still waiting for my .22 pistol to be released to me. If they are saying there are no delays they are lying.

I wish I could add my name to a class action lawsuit against the state. If there isn't one yet there should be.

[ShaunCostcoPro]

I am thinking about pursuing an action if mine is not approved by day 30. I think seeking declaratory relief will keep it out of small claims. Filing fee is $435 though, so that's a bit prohibitive. Not sure about class actions against the state for statutory violations. I can take a gander when I get some time about that.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Creative300

I did DROS on June 4, 2022 and got delayed. I am being delayed almost a month and still waiting for my .22 pistol to be released to me. If they are saying there are no delays they are lying.

I wish I could add my name to a class action lawsuit against the state. If there isn't one yet there should be.

Originally Posted by ShaunCostcoPro

I am thinking about pursuing an action if mine is not approved by day 30. I think seeking declaratory relief will keep it out of small claims. Filing fee is $435 though, so that's a bit prohibitive. Not sure about class actions against the state for statutory violations. I can take a gander when I get some time about that.

What MAY be a better response MIGHT be to contact;

BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC
BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN 177786)
STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 250957)
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2530
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 447-4900
Facsimile: (916) 447-4904
brad@benbrooklawgroup.com
steve@benbrooklawgroup.com
Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs

And inquire of they are looking to add more plaintiffs? To the 13 in the original complaint. Since enumerable thousands MORE victims of this "POLICY" have surfaced since initial filing back in August of 2020.

IANAL, So I don't even know if it can be done. Just a hardnosed old codger that's tired of being jerked around. But since a case exists, why start another, at personal expense if you can PILE ON an existing one.

[Creative300]

Thanks for the info pacrat, will look into it.

[ShaunCostcoPro]

It would generally have to relate back directly to the original causes of action. I don't think it would be wise to add additional plaintiffs because it creates some disparate issues. Most prudent course of action seems a new suit. I do have a law license although I don't do much civil litigation, mostly administrative law helping injured workers (and personal injury from time to time). But I also wouldn't want to disrupt whatever they have going on, sometimes they can also force the court to join different actions with common issues as well, wouldn't want to give the state any advantages over their pending case (ie reseting the clock on their trial date/discovery etc).

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by ShaunCostcoPro

It would generally have to relate back directly to the original causes of action. I don't think it would be wise to add additional plaintiffs because it creates some disparate issues. Most prudent course of action seems a new suit. I do have a law license although I don't do much civil litigation, mostly administrative law helping injured workers (and personal injury from time to time). But I also wouldn't want to disrupt whatever they have going on, sometimes they can also force the court to join different actions with common issues as well, wouldn't want to give the state any advantages over their pending case (ie reseting the clock on their trial date/discovery etc).

Totally your call of course. As mentioned IANAL. So you have to consider what is best in your own circumstances.

Fighting Ca-DOJ is never easy. We get the privilege of buying the rope they hang us with.

Best to you sir.

[FirearmFino]

FPC Wins Lawsuit Challenging California Firearms Purchase Delays

San Diego, CA (August 10, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a victory in its Campos v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenged policies and practices of California Attorney General Rob Bonta and his Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Firearms that delayed firearm transactions beyond the statutory 10-day waiting period absent a legal basis. The order can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“A plain reading of the statute’s language shows that the Legislature added the three specific circumstances for which the Department may delay releasing firearms when background checks are not completed,” wrote San Diego Superior Court Judge John S. Meyer in his Order. “Thus, contrary to respondents’ argument, these specified situations do not show the Legislature intended to provide the Department authority to delay release for any reason that background checks are not completed. Had the Legislature wished to create a broader allowance for a 30-day delay whenever the DOJ determined additional time is needed, it could have done so. It did not.”

On July 22, 2022, the Court granted FPC’s petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the DOJ to stop enforcing the delay policy and practice. The Court’s judgment reiterates that the DOJ must allow for delivery of firearms after conclusion of the 10-day waiting period unless it has identified one of the three bases for delay or already determined that the purchaser is ineligible.

Minute Order (PDF)

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

FPC Wins Lawsuit Challenging California Firearms Purchase Delays



Minute Order (PDF)

Good news delayed, but good news none the less.

[kcstott]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Shaun, when was the letter dated?

Can you dig up a link? Because sometime in the last 2 months Bonta removed that same claim from the DOJ FAQ page. Where it had been since Jan 1, 2014. When Kamaltoe put it there. Same day that pc 28220[4], which codified "undetermined status", went into effect.

Yes removed from the web page but not the delay letter. I have two in my possession. Discretion was implied to the dealer.

[flyer898]

Under NYSRPA v. Bruen, I think background checks and California's entire waiting period scheme is unconstitutional. There is no analog from the founding period - the lawsuit should have addressed this.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by flyer898

Under NYSRPA v. Bruen, I think background checks and California's entire waiting period scheme is unconstitutional. There is no analog from the founding period - the lawsuit should have addressed this.

I agree whole heartedly. But NYSRPA v Bruen is sadly, just a foot in the door to overturn all the unconstitutional laws on the books in all states.

Each will require litigation on their own merits based on that SCOTUS decision. It took over 5 decades for these LEFTIST INFRINGEMENTS to be passed incrementally. It will likely take at least a decade to incrementally remove them from statutes.

Hopefully, every 2A win will be citable, and increase the rapidity of INFRINGEMENT REMOVALS.

[Drivedabizness]

One need only look at the "Rube Goldberg, require maximum human intervention, invite confusion and delay" system imposed by DOJ and compare it to, say NICS. Our system disfunction is not a bug - it's a feature. DOJ can't be allowed to continue imposing this crap on us. Look at the APPS system debacle - they won't even allocate the grant $$$ the Legislature has appropriated.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by kcstott

Yes removed from the web page but not the delay letter. I have two in my possession. Discretion was implied to the dealer.

kc, can you please post the dates on those letters?

Inquiring minds thing.

[morrcarr67]

So what does this mean? Release on day 10 regardless of whether or not they finish thier jobs?

Sent from my BE2026 using Tapatalk

[kcstott]

Originally Posted by pacrat

kc, can you please post the dates on those letters?

Inquiring minds thing.

April, may and June of 2022
Received may, June and July of 2022

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by kcstott

April, may and June of 2022
Received may, June and July of 2022

Thank You, more solid confirmation as to what a duplicitous bastard the AG is.

[tast101]

[19tdicaddy]

As far as I am concerned, nothing has changed. In April of this year, I did a private party transfer of a long gun. The day after doing the forms I received a call from the ffl stating that DOJ had delayed the transfer. I had purchased dozens of fire arms in the years proceeding without as much as a hitch. Not being able to find out crap from anybody and being frustrated, knowing I am not a prohibited person, I purchased a pistol from a different dealer. The pistol was delivered to me in 10 days as the rifle was stuck on delay. The rifle was finally cleared after 28 days and of course, no explanation.
Fast forward to November 11 2022 I do the paper work on a nother private party transfer on another long gun. The transfer is being done at the same ffl where I was delayed earlier this year. Again I get the call and I am being delayed. Now mind you this is on a rifle over 50 years old, and is not necessary to transfer thru a dealer but I wasn't going no push the issue with the seller... So in other words nothing has changed at DOJ. STILL THE SAME OLD BULL ****. Now I am at 29 days and will have to wait til Tuesday to find anything out.

[homelessdude]

I have one of those letters dated OCT 27.2022. I quote ' The Department is required to make a determination within thirty calendar days. If the Department is unable to make a determination in this time, the dealer will be notified and may deliver the firearm(s) to you at his/her discretion."

[homelessdude]

It is becoming more important to ask the FFL how they will respond if after 30 days it is inconclusive. If they will refuse to release go to someone else who will. This is the only way to force the cowards who refuse to release to change their policy.

[BucDan]

With that judge, good chances.

[66nick]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

It is becoming more important to ask the FFL how they will respond if after 30 days it is inconclusive. If they will refuse to release go to someone else who will. This is the only way to force the cowards who refuse to release to change their policy.

And if they're a "good one" that releases on undetermined, make sure to post them up! List of FFLs who will release upon receipt of an "Undetermined" from a CA DROS.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

It is becoming more important to ask the FFL how they will respond if after 30 days it is inconclusive. If they will refuse to release go to someone else who will. This is the only way to force the cowards who refuse to release to change their policy.

This is stupid. They are not releasing due to fear of getting shut down. If they thought they could release without getting shut down, they would.

[homelessdude]

It is perfectly legal to release the firearms as stated in the DOJ letter. There are many FFLs who do. I believe there is a list on calguns that shows who they are. Nothing stupid about it. Support the people that support you, not the cowards.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

It is perfectly legal to release the firearms as stated in the DOJ letter. There are many FFLs who do. I believe there is a list on calguns that shows who they are. Nothing stupid about it. Support the people that support you, not the cowards.

There is no letter supporting your argument from DOJ to FFL's. DOJ actively tells FFL's that they COULD be liable.

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by 19tdicaddy

As far as I am concerned, nothing has changed. In April of this year, I did a private party transfer of a long gun. The day after doing the forms I received a call from the ffl stating that DOJ had delayed the transfer. I had purchased dozens of fire arms in the years proceeding without as much as a hitch. Not being able to find out crap from anybody and being frustrated, knowing I am not a prohibited person, I purchased a pistol from a different dealer. The pistol was delivered to me in 10 days as the rifle was stuck on delay. The rifle was finally cleared after 28 days and of course, no explanation.
Fast forward to November 11 2022 I do the paper work on a nother private party transfer on another long gun. The transfer is being done at the same ffl where I was delayed earlier this year. Again I get the call and I am being delayed. Now mind you this is on a rifle over 50 years old, and is not necessary to transfer thru a dealer but I wasn't going no push the issue with the seller... So in other words nothing has changed at DOJ. STILL THE SAME OLD BULL ****. Now I am at 29 days and will have to wait til Tuesday to find anything out.

The bolded..what? You mean I'm doing PPTs for all these customers that don't need it?

[Dirk Tungsten]

Originally Posted by ugimports

The bolded..what? You mean I'm doing PPTs for all these customers that don't need it?

Maybe he omitted that he had a C&R and COE. Or maybe not?

[66nick]

Originally Posted by taperxz

This is stupid. They are not releasing due to fear of getting shut down. If they thought they could release without getting shut down, they would.

I would be interested to hear of any FFLs being shut down because they released a firearm after receiving an "Undetermined" result from a DROS. Do you have any solid references/sources of this happening?

[66nick]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

It is perfectly legal to release the firearms as stated in the DOJ letter. There are many FFLs who do. I believe there is a list on calguns that shows who they are. Nothing stupid about it. Support the people that support you, not the cowards.

Hi - that's me! See the links in my signature!

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by taperxz

There is no letter supporting your argument from DOJ to FFL's. DOJ actively tells FFL's that they COULD be liable.

Kamala's BIG LIE hit the DOJ FAQ page in Jan 2014. Yet FFL's with any modicum of intelligence KNOW THAT IT IS A BIG LIE.

Even as far back as IIRC, Feb of 2014. When there were many discussions started here in the FFL forum. And HUNDREDS of citable posts in other forums since that time. Disproving that BIG LIE.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Kamala's BIG LIE hit the DOJ FAQ page in Jan 2014. Yet FFL's with any modicum of intelligence KNOW THAT IT IS A BIG LIE.

Even as far back as IIRC, Feb of 2014. When there were many discussions started here in the FFL forum. And HUNDREDS of citable posts in other forums since that time. Disproving that BIG LIE.

True but gun store owners aren’t lawyers and have lawyers who advise them to delivery maximum safety (it’s the lawyers job) of their clients exposure to loss of assets.

If you compare the amount of undetermined to approved, their lawyer will compare loss of revenue to that of being taken to court and potential loss of just trying to defend themselves in court against a broken, liberal court system that has been stacked against the 2A for decades.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten

Maybe he omitted that he had a C&R and COE. Or maybe not?

Regardless, a CA still needs to run a background check/DROS