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

[FirearmFino]

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.

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]

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/showpost.php?p=26994189&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]

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.

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]

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)