Wallingford v. Bonta (Challenge to California Restraining Order Firearm Prohibition)

[MCubeiro]

Hello Calguns! I wanted to share this press release with you all to inform you about this case our office recently filed. As published on the Second Amendment Law Center's website and republished on Ammoland.com.

SECOND AMENDMENT LAW CENTER, CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, ANNOUNCE SUPPORT OF LAWSUIT CHALLENGING RESTRAINING ORDER FIREARM PROHIBITION

a new lawsuitseeking an injunction against the prohibition while the lawsuit is litigated. A hearing on the Wallingfords request for an injunction is currently scheduled for November 1, 2021.

To learn more about the Second Amendment Law Center, the premier Second Amendment advocacy and legal resource center committed to the preservation and protection of the Second Amendment or to donate to causes like this, click herehttps://crpa.org/.

[NorCalRT]

Good luck!

[pacrat]

Thanks for the info Matt.

Keep swinging. This NO DUE PROCESS red flag crap gotta go.

[mshill]

Thanks for the info Matt.

Keep swinging. This NO DUE PROCESS red flag crap gotta go.

This. It is important that the court recognize the abuse that takes place because of these laws the circumvent due process. What if things unfolded differently after the first restraining order and the neighbor came after them on their property with a knife instead of just gesturing?

[TruOil]

I think that it is important to understand that, from what I can gather, this is NOT a case under California's red flag law, but is instead a case under the standard TRO for civil harassment. TROs under these statutes ALSO allow the confiscation of firearms prior to and up to the time of a hearing, as well as a lengthier prohibition on possession after hearing. I was surprised however, that the hearing was held 60 days leter--these are supposed to be expedited unless the parties agree to a continuance.

Further, although the trial court probably erred in issuing the restraining order, defendants' firearm prohibition was issued WITH due process of law, i.e., AFTER a hearing. What I see this as is the Courts' bias towards issuing mutual restraining orders, thus preventing the parties on both sides from possessing firearms. In fact, it is common for courts to ask the parties to stipulate to joint restraining orders, as this is more likely to keep the peace.

[pacrat]

Would you be happier with my post had I used "Red Flaggish" as descriptive adjective.

TROs under these statutes ALSO allow the confiscation of firearms prior to and up to the time of a hearing,

So in essence a "Red Flaggish" statute, sans the Red Flag Title. That allows denial of citizen's constitutional rights. Without a judicial hearing.

That doesn't quite fit the definition of "Due Process" by the 'innocent until proven guilty" standard.

The judge issued a restraining order that denied the Wallingford’s 2A rights, TWICE, based solely on bogus allegations, that the court knew to be bogus.

That judge is nothing but an inept fool. Or an activist with an agenda. Pick One, or both.

That crap gotta go.

[TruOil]

Would you be happier with my post had I used "Red Flaggish" as descriptive adjective.



So in essence a "Red Flaggish" statute, sans the Red Flag Title. That allows denial of citizen's constitutional rights. Without a judicial hearing.

That doesn't quite fit the definition of "Due Process" by the 'innocent until proven guilty" standard.

The judge issued a restraining order that denied the Wallingford’s 2A rights, TWICE, based solely on bogus allegations, that the court knew to be bogus.

That judge is nothing but an inept fool. Or an activist with an agenda. Pick One, or both.

That crap gotta go.

Harassment TROs have been around for a very long time. These are civil cases (with a burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence), not criminal cases, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. And gun confiscation prior to a contested hearing have been unsuccessfully challenged on due process grounds repeatedly, the appellate courts satisfied that the prompt hearing on the merits protects due process rights. Trial courts are bound by those decisions, so it is a loser every time. A judge hearing only one side of the story on a sworn declaration for a temporary order will almost always act to preserve the peace and to prevent future harm by granting the temporary order. However, hearings are supposed to be heard within 21 days because of due process concerns.

[pacrat]

Harassment TROs have been around for a very long time. These are civil cases (with a burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence), not criminal cases, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. And gun confiscation prior to a contested hearing have been unsuccessfully challenged on due process grounds repeatedly, the appellate courts satisfied that the prompt hearing on the merits protects due process rights. Trial courts are bound by those decisions, so it is a loser every time. A judge hearing only one side of the story on a sworn declaration for a temporary order will almost always act to preserve the peace and to prevent future harm by granting the temporary order. However, hearings are supposed to be heard within 21 days because of due process concerns.

as to BOLDED............ JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. Even if for 21 days.

Yes, it is a fact that such statutes exist, and have for a long time. My contention and beliefs are that they shouldn't, and never should have!

Preemptive confiscations, just in case someone MAY commit a crime sometime in the future. Based solely on unsupported allegations is BS.

From OP ...
"Imagine living in the same house with your spouse for over 50 years."

Considering that few, if any, couples purchase a home before they are at least in their 20s. That squarely places the Wallingfords in the elderly deomgraphic.

The judge based solely on an allegation. Preemptively removed from them the ability to defend themselves. If the need of Self Defense should arise during that 3 weeks.

Then he stretched it to 3 yrs still based on the same unfounded allegations.

A WRONG, that was wrongly condoned by previous courts. DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.

"THAT CRAP GOTTA GO!"

[TruOil]

as to BOLDED............ JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. Even if for 21 days.

Yes, it is a fact that such statutes exist, and have for a long time. My contention and beliefs are that they shouldn't, and never should have!

Preemptive confiscations, just in case someone MAY commit a crime sometime in the future. Based solely on unsupported allegations is BS.

From OP ...
"Imagine living in the same house with your spouse for over 50 years."

Considering that few, if any, couples purchase a home before they are at least in their 20s. That squarely places the Wallingfords in the elderly deomgraphic.

The judge based solely on an allegation. Preemptively removed from them the ability to defend themselves. If the need of Self Defense should arise during that 3 weeks.

Then he stretched it to 3 yrs still based on the same unfounded allegations.



A WRONG, that was wrongly condoned by previous courts. DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.

"THAT CRAP GOTTA GO!"

I don't disagree that the judge got it wrong. All I am saying that the judgement will not be overturned due to a lack of due process.

[pacrat]

I don't disagree that the judge got it wrong. All I am saying that the judgement will not be overturned due to a lack of due process.

The links in the above quote are DOWN for maintenance. So further info is unavailable.

I don't disagree with you. I applaud the plaintiffs for fighting against biased laws that make a farce of ACTUAL DUE PROCESS by negating due process in the name of supposed safety.

[darkwater34]

Red flag laws are pure bull**** makes anyone who owns a firearm a target.

[hoystory]

And...the judge dismissed the case without a hearing, based solely on the petitions.

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1453812986066391045

[pacrat]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.830193/gov.uscourts.cacd.830193.23.0.pdf

Judge David O Carter .... [slick Willy appointee]

How did an Orange County [Huntington Bch] case not be heard in So District?

[johncage]

this is the ultimate goal of idiocracy and regression towards the mean. so many people involved in the legal system who aren't even qualified to scrub toilets. that judge should be out on the corner begging for food instead of defiling the courts with his retardation

[RickD427]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...30193.23.0.pdf

Judge David O Carter .... [slick Willy appointee]

How did an Orange County [Huntington Bch] case not be heard in So District?

Because Huntington Beach ain't in the Southern District.

Please check out the regional boundaries if the Federal Court Districts and make sure you get the difference between Districts and Divisions in the organization of the Federal Courts. The Southern District of California encompasses San Diego county and its surrounding inland counties south of Riverside County.

The Central District of California encompasses San Bernardino County and Riverside County within its Eastern Division, Orange County within its Southern Division and Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties within its Western Division.

Please note that this case was heard by Judge Carter, who sits in the Southern Division of the Central District (Courtroom located in Santa Ana) and that would be the appropriate location to hear a Huntington Beach case.