|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Gentry v. Harris - DOJ Raid of DROS Fees (LOSS 3-26-21, lower ct affirmed)
Copy of the complaint is here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...f-Mandamus.pdf
This was posted earlier but the title was a bit vague. Calgunlaws.com/california-department-of-justice-sued-for-misuse-of-firearm-purchaser-fee/ California Department of Justice Sued for Misuse of Firearm Purchaser Fee Attorneys from the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. have filed a lawsuit on behalf of several individual gun owners and the Calguns Shooting Sports Association ("CGSSA"), challenging the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) misuse of monies collected from a fee that DOJ can require firearm purchasers to pay at the time of sale, the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) Fee. The lawsuit, assisted by the National Rifle Association, who has brought a federal lawsuit (Bauer v. Harris) seeking similar relief on Second Amendment grounds, seeks to stop DOJ from continuing to stick law-abiding gun owners with the bill for funding its general law enforcement projects through the DROS fee. Should the court rule in Plaintiffs’ favor on SB 819 being void as an illegal tax, this request by Plaintiffs could very likely result in a lowering of the DROS fee. The DROS fee was originally intended to fund DOJ’s background checks of prospective firearm purchasers. In fact, DOJ had always been statutorily required to limit the DROS Fee to an amount no more than necessary to recoup its costs incurred from regulating the transfer of firearms. Despite this statutory limitation, in recent years, the DROS Special Account had amassed a surplus of over $35 million, an extraordinary amount given that DOJ’s annual budget for the DROS program has averaged about $9 million a year during the last ten years. Rather than lower the DROS fee or give firearm purchasers their money back, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 819 ("SB 819") in 2011, authorizing DOJ to use DROS Fee revenues for regulating the "possession" of firearms. This was an extreme expansion of DOJ’s statutory authority to use DROS Fee monies. And DOJ has been taking advantage of its new-found authority. Since SB 819’s passage, DOJ has been shifting the main purpose of the DROS fee from funding background checks to funding DOJ’s enforcement of the Armed Prohibited Persons System ("APPS"). This shift culminated in the Legislature passing Senate Bill 140 ("SB 140") this year, which appropriated $24 million from the surplus in the DROS Special Account to exclusively fund DOJ’s enforcement of APPS enforcement activities, which primarily consist of DOJ officers and staff conducting investigations followed by SWAT-style raids on the residences of individuals DOJ believes illegally possess firearms. While there is a debate on whether APPS is beneficial or not (although, APPS does seem to be very problematic, as we have written about before, that is not the point in this lawsuit. For purpose of this lawsuit, Plaintiffs are not challenging the legality of DOJ’s APPS programs. Nor are Plaintiffs contesting the legality of the DROS fee per se. Rather, Plaintiffs’ dispute is with DOJ’s misuse of the monies that the Plaintiffs and others are required to pay in order to lawfully purchase firearms. First, Plaintiffs, complaint argues that SB 819 is an unconstitutional tax under the California Constitution, which requires that any new "levy, charge or exaction" be passed by a two-thirds "super-majority" vote of each house of the Legislature. By expanding the activities for which DROS fee revenues can be used and shifting the financial burden of such activities from the general fund to firearm purchasers, SB 819 is a new charge. Since it was not passed by such a super-majority, it is void and unenforceable as an illegal tax, unless DOJ can meet its burden to show that it is a "regulatory fee" and exempt from the super-majority vote. To do so, DOJ must show that SB 819 bears a fair or reasonable relationship to the DROS Fee payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from DOJ’s regulation of firearm possession. That it cannot do. Enforcement of APPS programs, for example, extends far beyond those activities reasonably related to the DROS Fee payer or the reason the DROS program was originally established – data collection and background checks. APPS involves general law enforcement activities that should be funded by the General Fund, not by lawful firearm purchasers. Thus, SB 819 is an illegal tax and should be voided. Likewise, Plaintiffs contend that because SB 819 is void, the Legislature’s appropriation of the $24 million from the DROS Special Account to DOJ for enforcement of APPS pursuant to SB 140, which relied on SB 819 for authority, is an illegal expenditure of funds. Plaintiffs therefore seek an injunction against DOJ from spending that money, and an order from the court ordering the State Controller to retrieve all monies given to DOJ pursuant to SB 140 and to return such monies to the DROS Special Account. Finally, Plaintiffs also take issue with the fact that the DROS fee has resulted in such a massive surplus in recent years, and seeks an order from the court compelling the DOJ to review and reevaluate the amount at which it currently charges the DROS Fee. Should the court rule in Plaintiffs’ favor on SB 819 being void as an illegal tax, this request by Plaintiffs could very likely result in a lowering of the DROS fee. There should be substantive movement on this case fairly soon. Stay tuned to http://www.calgunlaws.com/ to keep informed and updated. CGSSA Joins w/ Michel and Associates and NRA in suit Challenging DOJ Raid of DROS Fees
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member Calguns.net an incorported entity - President. The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President. The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director. DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW! Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA. Last edited by Kestryll; 01-17-2015 at 2:56 PM.. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Great lawsuit.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Smart strategy. I like how it focuses on the illegality of hijacking the DROS fund instead of being an all out attack on the APPS - that can be another fight.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
A very nice placement of the chisel.
__________________
Host of the FAST OC podcast. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
I missed this one. Very cool.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
FYI, this case is called Gentry v. Harris and is filed in Superior Court of California, Sacramento.
Copy of the complaint is here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...f-Mandamus.pdf The link in the OP for calgunlaws is currently down (looks like they're doing upgrades to the site). That page was previously linking to the Bauer complaint, which is similar but separate.
__________________
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for the link! Is there any update to the case itself (oral arguements, etc)?
-Ruskie
__________________
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. -Hon. Alex Kozinski (Silvera v Lockyer, 2003) |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
We are in discovery phase right now. An MSJ is the likely next step, which will hopefully take place by early summer.
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Thank you very much. It is nice to see your posts in the threads....
__________________
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire Quote:
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Which would mean we should expect a decision around the end of the year. Slow and painful...
__________________
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater “Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford ^ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
2027? Dan K. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Hopefully they owe us interest! It'll be like a cheesy annuity that we never even signed up for.
__________________
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
I'm pretty sure that one of Chuck's former associates now works for Howard Jarvis.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky. 90% of winning is simply showing up. "Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green NRA Benefactor Member |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Another DROS fund raid in the works... seems relevant news.
Calguns discussion thread here: SB 580 - $15 Million raid of fees paid by gun owners, to fund APPS confiscation / DOJ |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Go get 'em! I tired of this crap. Why even bother with the formality of passing a fake law when they just do whatever they want anyways?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor American Marksman Training Group Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page NRA Memberships at Discounted fee |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Nothing new listed here: http://michellawyers.com/gentry-v-harris/
Quote:
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
We are still in the discovery phase. Hopefully we will be ready for a dispositive motion in the next couple months. We will keep everyone updated.
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
According to this case the CADOJ is sitting on a multi-million dollar surplus in a special fund dedicated to supporting the DROS process. Yet they claimed they were resource-constrained and could not comply with the Court order to revise the process in Sylvester v Harris.
Uh, maybe I'm not connecting the dots correctly. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
== The price of freedom is eternal litigation. == |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
This is yet another slam dunk that should have been that never was.
Never mind....
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Thank you, Sean
Quote:
hmmm...when you win this, can we gun owners file a class action lawsuit to get our money back, and triple damages? j/k... but make them pay!
__________________
Where there is unity there is always victory. ~ Publius Syrus NRA Lifetime Member, SAF Lifetime Member |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Another question on DROS hijacking and real costs...
I spoke to a guy who worked gun shows in TX and now here, and he said they can get an ok on background check via NICS in 15 minutes...
but CA holds it up, and not for the 10 day limit- there is something else, technology wise, or maybe its just foot dragging... I may not have gotten that quite right, but if so, then not only is CA DOJ not using DROS for what they should be, but what they are spending is not getting the job done, vs other states that have no problems doing so.... That also makes me skeptical of the CA DOJ whine about money, manpower, and conforming on Silevestre in 6 months, and Judge Ishii's reply...
__________________
Where there is unity there is always victory. ~ Publius Syrus NRA Lifetime Member, SAF Lifetime Member |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
I had thought this case was mooted by legislation passed in the past year or two legally authorizing their use of that money for whatever they wanted, consequently no more "surplus" and no legal recourse? Did I misunderstand something somewhere?
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We live in the most tech-savvy state in the Union, so I find it hard to believe a DROS is held up for (10-days) due to technology, it's more likely the foot-dragging (which you have so stated) and I'd even go further to speculate that CA DOJ programmed their systems to manditorily hold a submission to that 10-day limit in order to fulfill the legislative intent of the original bill.....IMHO.
__________________
Quote:
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
How bad of shenanigans? They mutate the information that you put on your DROS and then check to see if any of those names, or dates of birth, or anything, get close to the ID of a prohibited person, so if you are John Smith, you are screwed, you're going to be about 20 different prohibited people all at the same time.
__________________
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Why not, that's a good idea. I'm in
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
None. She's on the campaign trail AND the public tit. She uses underlings to not handle the work load in a timely fashion now.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights. Magna est veritas et praevalebit |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|