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 online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,183
iTrader: 11 / 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 Hillery,...... and found no wrong doing.

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


Last edited by pacrat; 04-20-2019 at 10:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:57 PM
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,085
iTrader: 6 / 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: 597
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
NRA Life Member

"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: 2,005
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 online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,183
iTrader: 11 / 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
Honorary MLC
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a shack, in the woods
Posts: 12,642
iTrader: 107 / 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: 434
iTrader: 6 / 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: 13,862
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
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,696
iTrader: 10 / 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
Posts: 871
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 online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,779
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.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-25-2017, 9:14 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,696
iTrader: 10 / 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: 44
iTrader: 2 / 100%
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 online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 272
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: 2,281
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: 1,834
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
  #58  
Old 10-26-2017, 8:41 PM
RECCE556's Avatar
RECCE556 RECCE556 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: X████████████a
Posts: 1,249
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

I too would be wiling to donate all of my DROS refund to the CRPA or put it towards any legal battle to fight the asinine laws in CA. The problem is getting the DOJ to actually pay money back is going to be next to impossible I think.
__________________
“The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory.” - Aldo Gucci
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-03-2017, 8:58 AM
OrwellianEra's Avatar
OrwellianEra OrwellianEra is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Gold Country
Posts: 44
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toddytguns View Post
Orwellian we are talking about the state. This thread is about the CA DOJ's misuse of DROS fees, which are state mandated fees.
The DOJ is a federal institution, and the CA DOJ is merely a subsidiary of that Institution.

Last edited by OrwellianEra; 12-03-2017 at 9:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-03-2017, 11:31 AM
thedrickel's Avatar
thedrickel thedrickel is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lost in the wheels of confusion
Posts: 5,509
iTrader: 137 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrwellianEra View Post
The DOJ is a federal institution, and the CA DOJ is merely a subsidiary of that Institution.
Wut?
__________________
I hate people that are full of hate.

It's not illegal to tip for PPT!
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-04-2017, 5:26 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrwellianEra View Post
The DOJ is a federal institution, and the CA DOJ is merely a subsidiary of that Institution.
US education at its best.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-04-2017, 8:15 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,147
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrwellianEra View Post
The DOJ is a federal institution, and the CA DOJ is merely a subsidiary of that Institution.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-04-2017, 10:58 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,183
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrwellianEra View Post
The DOJ is a federal institution, and the CA DOJ is merely a subsidiary of that Institution.
Another example of a "No Civics Classes For You" public education victim.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-09-2019, 11:56 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 826
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Cross-linking from this thread: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...1&postcount=15

What's the status of this case? I didn't even know it was still going, and according to the legislative analysis for the Assembly Public Safety Committee on the 4/9 hearing for AB-1669 (concerning changing the DROS fee) is that the judge ruled against us on March 4th, yet the last update that I can find about this was by the NRA-ILA in December 2018.

Does anyone want to post the March 4th ruling?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-10-2019, 9:24 AM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 694
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Status Update

Here is the ruling: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...try-Ruling.pdf

Unfortunately, the new judge mostly negated the win the previous judge gave us by declaring that DOJ had shown that the DROS Fee is not being over-charged, apparently based on DOJ's briefing, though it is not clear. The new judge also ruled that the DROS Fee is not a tax because only DROS Fee payers end up in APPS, so that class of people can be saddled with the costs of APPS. We do not believe that is the proper analysis; rather, we believe the fee vs. tax analysis should look only at those costs a fee payer's actual activity causes. In the case of a DROS Fee, that is the cost of a background check and registration, not the cost of the APPS program, which less than one percent of DROS Fee payers will ever fall into.

We will be appealing.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-10-2019, 12:03 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 826
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks Sean! Hopefully things will go better on appeal. I appreciate the work you guys are doing.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-10-2019, 1:01 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,696
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
The new judge also ruled that the DROS Fee is not a tax because only DROS Fee payers end up in APPS, so that class of people can be saddled with the costs of APPS.
By that logic, property tax isn't a tax because only property owners pay it. Income tax isn't a tax because only people with income pay any.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-10-2019, 1:21 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 227
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Why was there a "new" judge?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-10-2019, 1:26 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 694
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Here is the ruling: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...try-Ruling.pdf

The new judge also ruled that the DROS Fee is not a tax because only DROS Fee payers end up in APPS, so that class of people can be saddled with the costs of APPS.

We will be appealing.
Is that true? I thought anyone who got 5150'd or involuntarily committed as well as all those with DV convictions and felonies ended up in there too. Or do they end up on another list of just plain "prohibited persons"?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-10-2019, 1:33 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,147
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Is that true? I thought anyone who got 5150'd or involuntarily committed as well as all those with DV convictions and felonies ended up in there too. Or do they end up on another list of just plain "prohibited persons"?
Good point, you would think they would want all prohibited persons listed, whether they have DROS'd a firearm in CA or not.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-10-2019, 1:45 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 694
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Why was there a "new" judge?
Just a reassignment, it happens. Unfortunate for us, as he gave us a solid win in the first part of this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Is that true? I thought anyone who got 5150'd or involuntarily committed as well as all those with DV convictions and felonies ended up in there too. Or do they end up on another list of just plain "prohibited persons"?
No, it is not true, and we pointed this out to the court. To be clear, though, all prohibited people end up on a list, but only people who have a firearm "registered" to them in AFS can be in the APPS database. It is possible to acquire a firearm that is in AFS without paying a DROS Fee.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-10-2019, 1:58 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,183
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Unfortunately, the new judge mostly negated the win the previous judge gave us by declaring that DOJ had shown that the DROS Fee is not being over-charged, apparently based on DOJ's briefing, though it is not clear.


The Judge SAID,...... that DOJ SAID,...... that DOJ is GTG.


RE-AFFIRMING POST #41

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceGirlsHusband View Post
A court ordering DOJ to review itself should produce a fair result, yes?
Quote:
Of course it will be a "fair result".

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

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

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

MOVE ALONG PEASANTS...............NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!!

Last edited by retired; 04-20-2019 at 9:01 PM.. Reason: Rule 3
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-11-2019, 1:09 AM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 157
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There is an article on the new judge "HON. RICHARD K. SUEYOSHI" in this law magazine.

Listing this here in case someone wants to know his personal background, and how it might affect his views on this case. He's a UC Berkeley graduate with some recognitions for his volunteering and service. He values diversity and handles a large caseload of misdemeanors.

https://issuu.com/milenkovlais/docs/...2018_online/18

He seems like a decent fellow. I regret he opined the way he did. Still parsing the judgement now.

Last edited by Citizen One; 04-11-2019 at 1:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-16-2019, 6:29 PM
Hakoomay's Avatar
Hakoomay Hakoomay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: AC 909
Posts: 590
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

How does this affect Senate Bill 1669 (by Rob Bonta - D)? Apparently they're trying to raise the DROS fees paid by consumers with that bill
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-16-2019, 6:39 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 13,850
iTrader: 161 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen One View Post
There is an article on the new judge "HON. RICHARD K. SUEYOSHI" in this law magazine.

Listing this here in case someone wants to know his personal background, and how it might affect his views on this case. He's a UC Berkeley graduate with some recognitions for his volunteering and service. He values diversity and handles a large caseload of misdemeanors.

https://issuu.com/milenkovlais/docs/...2018_online/18

He seems like a decent fellow. I regret he opined the way he did. Still parsing the judgement now.
I know him, used to work with him. He is a good guy. I guess I need to read the ruling...
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-16-2019, 8:57 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 826
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakoomay View Post
How does this affect Senate Bill 1669 (by Rob Bonta - D)? Apparently they're trying to raise the DROS fees paid by consumers with that bill
I talked about this in the other threads when I brought up the question on status

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
Related from AB-18 and AB-1699 in Public Safety Committee today.

https://www.assembly.ca.gov/media/as...20190409/video

AB-18 is discussed at 58: 10.

Mostly discusses the cost the $25 fee would impose.

AB-1669 is discussed at 3: 02: 33.

More is discussed on the point of DROS fees as well as the surpluses you mention.

Also, I thought we won gentry v harris/Becerra (which is the suit over DROS funds) but reading the analysis for the committee today we ultimately lost it recently? That case concerns the question you ask rather initimately.
And then this talks about the Analysis mentioning this case:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
So yeah, as linked above, it does indeed say we had a favorable ruling in 2017 in... Sacramento Superior Court? However, apparently this case has been ongoing.

For each bill on the Committee, on the day before or the day of the hearing, an analysis done by the committee lawyers is published on each bill. This can be found under publications.

Now, if we go to April 9, 2019 Committee Analysis Part III, we find the following concerning AB-1669 and DROS Fees on PDF Page 42.
Quote:
Recently, the DROS fee was challenged in court by a group of plaintiffs made up of gun owners and enthusiasts. (Gentry v. Becerra, (Mar. 4, 2019, No. 34-2013-80001667) Sacramento Sup. Ct.) The plaintiffs argued that DROS fee was not properly calculated, that DOJ was using DROS funds outside of their statutory authority, and that the fee was in fact a tax, thus violating the California Constitution. (Id. at 1.) Ultimately the superior court ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that the DROS fee was a reasonable approximation of the costs of the government-provided regulatory services and that the DROS fee was not a tax. (Id. at 13.) Because this bill would both increase the DROS fee and expand the activities for which that fee can be used, it is likely to subject the fee to renewed legal challenges.
So if you watch the video you can see the discussion on the AB-1669, and then if you read the analysis you can see that the analysis presented to legislators points out that we did ultimately get ruled against, and that the fee was a "reasonable approximation" and "not a tax", though that the bill would likely be challenged if passed. Legislators (and/or their staff) use those analysis to get a quick idea of the impacts and/or effects of a bill, so that kind of hurts us in regards to legislators looking at whether to pass AB-1669.

However, if we should challenge the ruling and prevail, then the case may set us up to challenge AB-1669 (should it pass). AB-1669 does do a better job of spelling out how DROS fees are allocated, which is part of the challenge that was made in Gentry vs Harris/Becerra, and winning on that probably wouldn't be enough to challenge AB-1669, given it spells out allocation better (even if that allocation is a "blank check" so to speak)... however the other part is whether the fee is actually a tax, and if we got it ruled as a tax, which would (from a skimming, I haven't had time to read yet, been busy this last couple weeks) violate the California Constitution, then that would definitely set us up to challenge and/or invalidate AB-1669, since it does the same core thing that is being challenged: Using fees to fund enforcement activities by the CA DoJ.

I think an analogue would be (though do forgive if I get it wrong):
DROS fees shouldn't be raised to fund enforcement of bad actors who commit firearm crimes (who may or may not buy them at a state dealer in the first place) no more than should the state fees/taxes on cell phone bills be raised to fund the enforcement of bad actors who engage criminal speech like incitement to violence (who may or may not use California based plans or approved services in the first place).
Service is a bit different than a Product, but that's a state tax that exists that comes to mind related to a purchased thing used for speech.

Still need to fully read this opinion later, and thanks Sean for posting it.

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 04-16-2019 at 9:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-20-2019, 9:11 PM
retired retired is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,698
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Some of you need to review Rule #3 and the pertinent part as written by Kestryll follows:


Quote:
Non-Second Amendment political discussion will be kept civil, polite and respectful just as Second Amendment political discussion has been expected to be. Sarcastic or insulting terms or images used in regards to elected officials will not be allowed. It doesn’t matter if it is Bush, Clinton, Cheney, Pelosi or our own State Senators, the clever names and sarcastic comments do not make us look anything other than childish. You do not have to respect the person but we expect you to respect the Office. If you can not your post will be removed, repeated removals will cause your account to be closed.
In other words, Hitlery, O-holder, Obummer, etc. isn't acceptable, notwithstanding how much we all (myself included) dislike them. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-25-2019, 12:45 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 826
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Going to note here that on 5/25, AB-1699 is no longer going to increase the DROS fee directly, and instead is creating a seperate "supplemental fund" for regulatory activities and enforcement (to be used by appropriation by the legislature). Furthermore, they removed the only subdivision (11) that concerns enforcement from the original DROS fee.

I'd -like- to think that this is because CA DoJ feels threatened by Gentry v Becerra, since I believe this tries to sidestep the case (for going into the future, but there's still things to answer for previous fee setting and fund raiding). If you're paying attention Sean, I imagine it's.... too early to talk about, but if you do have any thoughts, I'd be curious.

The other thing this did is reduce the bill from a 2/3 vote to a majority vote, but I'd find it hard to believe that this bill would have trouble getting votes, so I imagine that's ancillary.

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 05-25-2019 at 12:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-25-2019, 7:28 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
I'd -like- to think that this is because CA DoJ feels threatened by Gentry v Becerra, since I believe this tries to sidestep the case (for going into the future, but there's still things to answer for previous fee setting and fund raiding). If you're paying attention Sean, I imagine it's.... too early to talk about, but if you do have any thoughts, I'd be curious.
From the April 9, Policy Committee Analysis:
Quote:
Recently, the DROS fee was challenged in court by a group of plaintiffs made up of gun owners and enthusiasts. (Gentry v. Becerra, (Mar. 4, 2019, No. 34-2013-80001667) Sacramento Sup. Ct.) The plaintiffs argued that DROS fee was not properly calculated, that DOJ was using DROS funds outside of their statutory authority, and that the fee was in fact a tax, thus violating the California Constitution. (Id. at 1.) Ultimately the superior court ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that the DROS fee was a reasonable approximation of the costs of the government-provided regulatory services and that the DROS fee was not a tax. (Id. at 13.) Because this bill would both increase the DROS fee and expand the activities for which that fee can be used, it is likely to subject the fee to renewed legal challenges.
So, at the outset, the issue was raised. The current realignment of the sections doesn’t negate this statement from the original policy hearing (in fact, the floor analyses refer back to this document.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
The other thing this did is reduce the bill from a 2/3 vote to a majority vote, but I'd find it hard to believe that this bill would have trouble getting votes, so I imagine that's ancillary.
In an earlier version of the bill, the Leg Counsel included standard language for any bill which increases a tax:
Quote:
This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
OOOOOPS!

After what was, no doubt, an, “Oh, S***”, moment, this was amended out, because DOJ has steadfastly refused to call DROS a “tax”, relying on its status as a “fee”, which doesn’t require 2/3 vote to pass.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 05-25-2019 at 7:33 AM..
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 3:46 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.