Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

VALLEJOS v ROB BONTA and CHAD BIANCO challenging the CCW SCHEME 🚨UPDATE🚨

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Cheekyfella
    Junior Member
    • Aug 2022
    • 85

    VALLEJOS v ROB BONTA and CHAD BIANCO challenging the CCW SCHEME 🚨UPDATE🚨

    🚨 CASE UPDATE: VALLEJOS v. ROB BONTA & CHAD BIANCO 🚨
    Hey everyone, long time calguns member. I wanted to give a big update on my federal case out of Riverside, California: VALLEJOS v. ROB BONTA & CHAD BIANCO.

    I filed this lawsuit pro se (on my own, without an attorney) because California’s current CCW scheme is unconstitutional, profit-driven, and actively stripping law-abiding citizens of their rights.


    ---

    ⚖️ Where We’re At

    I filed for a preliminary injunction to stop California’s CCW scheme in Riverside. The court denied it.

    On August 27, 2025, I filed a Notice of Appeal to keep this case moving forward in the Ninth Circuit.

    This means the fight is far from over. It’s just now stepping into a bigger courtroom where precedent truly matters.



    ---

    🔑 Why This Case Matters

    After the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling struck down “good cause,” California swapped it for “good moral character” screening—an equally unconstitutional, subjective barrier.

    On top of that, they stacked training mandates and state fees, turning your right into a paid subscription model.

    I’m a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). I hold an Arizona CCW. I even have a letter from the California DOJ confirming I’m not a prohibited/disqualified person.
    👉 Yet Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco denied me anyway under these “good moral character” hurdles. Yes it's still in play after SB2 just masked. I was harmed by this masking.


    This case isn’t about politics. It’s not Red vs. Blue. It’s the State vs. YOU.


    ---

    đź’° Follow the Money.... I am not knocking instructors I support training but not Force training to exercise and right.

    Here’s why the State is fighting so hard to keep this system alive:

    CCW instructors routinely charge $275 per seat.

    25 students = $6,875 per class.

    Just one class per week = $357,500 per year.

    Over ten years = $3.5 MILLION—from one instructor.


    Now multiply that across California. We’re talking tens of millions—possibly more—flowing into a system that exists only because the State insists you must “pay to play” for an inalienable right. I am not knocking trainers or saying don't get training I'm just saying we shouldn't be required to pay a dollar to exercise any of our inalienable rights assured by the Constitution which is what this is about.


    ---

    📢 What You Can Do (Peacefully & Lawfully)

    1. Spread awareness. Share this case in every 2A and legal forum you can. Most people don’t even know it exists.


    2. Engage locally. File CPRA requests (California’s version of FOIA) for denial rates, fee ledgers, and instructor rosters in your county. This data exposes the racket.


    3. Push back politically. Contact your reps and demand they eliminate subjective standards and excessive fees.


    4. Support grassroots action. Don’t wait for big orgs. They’ve ignored this fight. It’s on us to bring the light.




    ---

    đź’ˇ Bottom Line

    I’m not a millionaire. I’m not backed by CRPA, NRA, or any big machine. I’m just a regular citizen who decided to take this fight to federal court.

    My case proves the truth: California’s CCW scheme is unconstitutional on its face and as applied.

    It violates Bruen.

    It violates Heller.

    It violates McDonald.

    And it violates the principle that rights are not for sale.


    When government turns liberty into a privilege you have to buy, resistance becomes duty.


    ---

    👉 If you’re tired of watching your rights get auctioned off to the highest bidder, stand with me. Amplify this case. Share the facts. And most importantly—don’t buy into the idea that rights are “permissions” from the State.

    VALLEJOS v. BONTA & BIANCO is proof that one person can push back. But I can’t do it alone.

    There is a give send go that was started for the legal fund because an attorney picked up my case to help me out because he seen I needed the help. None of the money goes to me it all goes to the legal fund and it is controlled by him. I never did this for money or recognition I was forced into this because my rights were denied after jumping through all the hoops and following all the laws and doing everything the right way. Sorry not sorry. 🤷🏼

    If the owners of the website will allow me to post the link to the legal fund I will happily do so in the comments. I have been on calguns for a very long time and had a excellent rating when it wasn't updated. I appreciate everything you have done for the gun community.



    Attached Files
    It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled.

    CRPA member and volunteer
    Support those who support you. Donate to the CRPA.
  • #2
    Cheekyfella
    Junior Member
    • Aug 2022
    • 85

    Shoot! I thought I was in the political discussion area. Can someone migrate it to the proper area if necessary. I should have paid attention.
    It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled.

    CRPA member and volunteer
    Support those who support you. Donate to the CRPA.

    Comment

    • #3
      Snoopy47
      Veteran Member
      • Aug 2010
      • 3805

      I hear yea....................

      Eventually someone's greed is going to catch up with them.

      Someone is going to use a CCW for right or wrong, and everyone in the daisy chain that was responsible for training, evaluating, and approving that CCW is going to be on the hook.

      I do think this cottage industry is going to end up being our greatest advocates. Hired Background, phycologists that really don't have self sustaining practices, and tactical trainers that would otherwise be stuck to training mall ninjas are riding this golden goose.

      That said.............. I think the best chance of something happening is when the state figures out they can have more control over this CCW thing by enacting state wide unified standards and fee structures. I think their ability to actually administer it is what's holding the state back.
      Before there was Polymer there was Accuracy.

      Comment

      • #4
        BAJ475
        Calguns Addict
        • Jul 2014
        • 5047

        Originally posted by Cheekyfella
        🚨 CASE UPDATE: VALLEJOS v. ROB BONTA & CHAD BIANCO 🚨
        Hey everyone, long time calguns member. I wanted to give a big update on my federal case out of Riverside, California: VALLEJOS v. ROB BONTA & CHAD BIANCO.

        I filed this lawsuit pro se (on my own, without an attorney) because California’s current CCW scheme is unconstitutional, profit-driven, and actively stripping law-abiding citizens of their rights.


        ---

        ⚖️ Where We’re At

        I filed for a preliminary injunction to stop California’s CCW scheme in Riverside. The court denied it.

        On August 27, 2025, I filed a Notice of Appeal to keep this case moving forward in the Ninth Circuit.

        This means the fight is far from over. It’s just now stepping into a bigger courtroom where precedent truly matters.



        ---

        🔑 Why This Case Matters

        After the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling struck down “good cause,” California swapped it for “good moral character” screening—an equally unconstitutional, subjective barrier.

        On top of that, they stacked training mandates and state fees, turning your right into a paid subscription model.

        I’m a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). I hold an Arizona CCW. I even have a letter from the California DOJ confirming I’m not a prohibited/disqualified person.
        👉 Yet Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco denied me anyway under these “good moral character” hurdles. Yes it's still in play after SB2 just masked. I was harmed by this masking.


        This case isn’t about politics. It’s not Red vs. Blue. It’s the State vs. YOU.


        ---

        đź’° Follow the Money.... I am not knocking instructors I support training but not Force training to exercise and right.

        Here’s why the State is fighting so hard to keep this system alive:

        CCW instructors routinely charge $275 per seat.

        25 students = $6,875 per class.

        Just one class per week = $357,500 per year.

        Over ten years = $3.5 MILLION—from one instructor.


        Now multiply that across California. We’re talking tens of millions—possibly more—flowing into a system that exists only because the State insists you must “pay to play” for an inalienable right. I am not knocking trainers or saying don't get training I'm just saying we shouldn't be required to pay a dollar to exercise any of our inalienable rights assured by the Constitution which is what this is about.


        ---

        📢 What You Can Do (Peacefully & Lawfully)

        1. Spread awareness. Share this case in every 2A and legal forum you can. Most people don’t even know it exists.


        2. Engage locally. File CPRA requests (California’s version of FOIA) for denial rates, fee ledgers, and instructor rosters in your county. This data exposes the racket.


        3. Push back politically. Contact your reps and demand they eliminate subjective standards and excessive fees.


        4. Support grassroots action. Don’t wait for big orgs. They’ve ignored this fight. It’s on us to bring the light.




        ---

        đź’ˇ Bottom Line

        I’m not a millionaire. I’m not backed by CRPA, NRA, or any big machine. I’m just a regular citizen who decided to take this fight to federal court.

        My case proves the truth: California’s CCW scheme is unconstitutional on its face and as applied.

        It violates Bruen.

        It violates Heller.

        It violates McDonald.

        And it violates the principle that rights are not for sale.


        When government turns liberty into a privilege you have to buy, resistance becomes duty.


        ---

        👉 If you’re tired of watching your rights get auctioned off to the highest bidder, stand with me. Amplify this case. Share the facts. And most importantly—don’t buy into the idea that rights are “permissions” from the State.

        VALLEJOS v. BONTA & BIANCO is proof that one person can push back. But I can’t do it alone.

        There is a give send go that was started for the legal fund because an attorney picked up my case to help me out because he seen I needed the help. None of the money goes to me it all goes to the legal fund and it is controlled by him. I never did this for money or recognition I was forced into this because my rights were denied after jumping through all the hoops and following all the laws and doing everything the right way. Sorry not sorry. 🤷🏼

        If the owners of the website will allow me to post the link to the legal fund I will happily do so in the comments. I have been on calguns for a very long time and had a excellent rating when it wasn't updated. I appreciate everything you have done for the gun community.


        While the court denied your motion for a preliminary injunction is the action for a permanent injunction still going on?

        Comment

        • #5
          Cheekyfella
          Junior Member
          • Aug 2022
          • 85

          I can barely log into this site anymore I don't know why but I will try to keep everyone updated as much as I can. No one is covering this on their big to a channels and no Second Amendment organizations have stepped into help.
          It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled.

          CRPA member and volunteer
          Support those who support you. Donate to the CRPA.

          Comment

          • #6
            Dvrjon
            CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
            CGN Contributor - Lifetime
            • Nov 2012
            • 11250

            A couple of questions:

            1. In which district court was this heard, or was it dismissed prior to hearing?
            2. Is there a written finding/decision by the court as to why the suit was dismissed?
            3. Did you present the suit as a “facial” or “as applied” challenge?

            Thanks.

            Comment

            Working...
            UA-8071174-1