New Laws - Why No Injunction?

[bruss01]

In the past, when new laws have been enacted threatening the core of our lawful firearms rights, the gun rights organizations have filed for injunctions to delay implementation of the laws.

Anticipating this, I waited. I waited for the injunction that was never filed, and I waited on the DOJ BOF to release the new regs (they never did) so I would know how best to allocate my meager resources.

I almost waited too long.

For reasons I won't go into here, I choose not to register my currently possessed rifles. Last night I completed paperwork on what I expect will become my "registered AW" receivers in the new year. Certainly the timing was my choice, and I explained the reasoning for it. The gun store looked like a liquor store the week before Prohibition kicked in. I've seen panics but I have not seen people standing that deep waiting just to do paperwork or pick up - not shopping, not browsing, just taking care of the legal stuff. I'm guessing a lot of them were in the same boat... they had been waiting for information or a change of circumstance that never materialized and eventually their hand was forced. Act now or regret it later.

So, why are we down literally to the last 2 weeks of the year, when nearly every company (law firms and government no doubt as well) are short-staffed and short hours, and no serious challenge or push back of any kind? (I'm not counting Veto Gunmageddon and yes I was a participant in collecting sigs for that). There should be papers filed by now, shouldn't there?

We've been waiting for help... a rescue that it is now evident was never coming to begin with. Now, instead of waiting for an orderly turn of events, we take some f-ing parking shuttles and reinforce them with some aluminum siding, and then just head on over to the gun store where we watch our good friend Bruss01 play some cowboy-movie, jump-on-the-covered-wagon bulls-t? Then we're going to drive across the ruined city through a welcome committee of a few hundred thousand dead cannibals. All so we can sail off into the sunset on this f-ing a-hole's boat. Jump through some set of very poorly defined, FLAMING HOOPS of vague laws, poorly worded regs, ambiguous court cases and compliance workarounds of unknown legality. And head for some island of CA legal AW ownership that for all we know doesn't even exist?

Yep... I'm in.

[aBrowningfan]

I am starting to wonder if the 2A litigation industry have given up on California. The 9th Circuit certainly seems an uninviting place and SCotUS may not be a check on the 9th Circuit, so why pursue something that has limited prospect for success?

Out of curiosity, why did you choose to wait until almost the last day to take possession before the ban kicks in?

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Lawsuits are coming

Have you seen this?

http://crpa.org/help-crpa-nra-roll-back-californias-draconian-gun-laws/

[aBrowningfan]

Litigation can't come soon enough. I did contribute to CRPA back in July hoping litigation would be forthcoming. After the recent rulings on Peruta and Silvester, I have been wondering if challenging 2A laws in California was a lost cause.

[bruss01]

Have you seen this?

http://crpa.org/help-crpa-nra-roll-b...nian-gun-laws/

While I'm grateful that someone, somewhere, is doing something... it hasn't come in time to save people from having to make some hard choices and take some actions where the timing wasn't suitable and all the details aren't in so they don't even know if the things they are doing are the RIGHT ones for their situation. People are guessing and hedging their bets with multiple strategies ($$$) because they don't have enough hard facts and they don't know what's going to be done vs not. And not enough time to wait and see before windows of opportunity close forever.

Hopefully the things that are in the "planning" stages now, will materialize into actual actions that will do us some good, while there is still time. My question is we have had injunctions previously that kept bad laws from taking effect, pending actual litigation, why not this time.

[ke6guj]

While I'm grateful that someone, somewhere, is doing something... it hasn't come in time to save people from having to make some hard choices and take some actions where the timing wasn't suitable and all the details aren't in so they don't even know if the things they are doing are the RIGHT ones for their situation. People are guessing and hedging their bets with multiple strategies ($$$) because they don't have enough hard facts and they don't know what's going to be done vs not. And not enough time to wait and see before windows of opportunity close forever.

Hopefully the things that are in the "planning" stages now, will materialize into actual actions that will do us some good, while there is still time. My question is we have had injunctions previously that kept bad laws from taking effect, pending actual litigation, why not this time.

my guess is that we don't have "standing" yet to challenge these laws because we haven't been "harmed" by them yet.

[bruss01]

Out of curiosity, why did you choose to wait until almost the last day to take possession before the ban kicks in?

From my post above:

I waited for the injunction that was never filed, and I waited on the DOJ BOF to release the new regs (they never did) so I would know how best to allocate my meager resources.

And also from the same post:

For reasons I won't go into here, I choose not to register my currently possessed rifles.

Finally:

Certainly the timing was my choice, and I explained the reasoning for it.

But hey, what the heck, I can go over it in more depth if you like.

Why wait that long? Because I wanted better options than the ones that were presenting, and I felt that every day I waited was one day (possibly) closer to some kind of reprieve, even if temporary. But I was also aware that if it happened that "no help coming" and no better info, at some point, my hand would be forced if I didn't want to risk seriously limiting my future options. I waited until Dec 10th to make my decision. At that point, it was a matter of ordering the lowers and waiting on shipping. There were two packages, one of which got delayed in shipment by a few days. I thought that was enough time, and it was, but barely.

I didn't run out the day after Brown signed the new laws because I figured they would be challenged long before they kicked in (still waiting on that one).

I didn't run out while VetoGunmageddon was in the works because I really thought we had a chance, I certainly devoted all the effort I could to that drive... but it failed.

I didn't run out the day Prop 63 passed because I figured a counter-effort was in the works - doesn't look like it's happening this year, does it...

I didn't run out thanksgiving weekend because people kept saying DOJ BOF would be publishing regs and that would give me a better idea about what was or wasn't 2017-compliant. Mags aside, they haven't.

I wanted to give circumstances every chance to change in my favor... but Dec 10 was my make/break day and I had to commit. That means spending money and investing time and effort from other things that I'd prefer to be devoting them to, like the $650 car repair bill I just got hit with and a decent Christmas season for the wife and I.

I actually don't need any more guns. But I don't want to register any that I currently own, and I also don't want to lose out on possibly the last opportunity to own a CA Legal AW. I don't want to be spending more money on non-essentials this close to Christmas, and yet, because I don't know really what's going on or what's going to happen in the future, I HAVE to if I want to hedge my bets against future developments. So I waited for more information, for DOJ BOF regs, for an injunction - anything to narrow down the contingencies or buy more time to see what develops.

In the end, I waited as long as I could without letting a window of opportunity close. I think a lot of people are in that boat and are a little disappointed (maybe more than a little) that they had to take what might later prove to be unnecessary steps at a very inconvenient time to keep from limiting their future options.

[sfpcservice]

I think the laws have to take effect before we can file.

[Whiskey_Tango]

[baggss]

I'm amazed at how people seem to think the legal system is a fast paced institution that will produce immediate results.

Look at Peruta. It was originally filed, what, in 2009? We saw no substantial change to any policy until early 2014 (5 years) and it probably won't see SCOTUS until 2018 with maybe a ruling in 2019ish. That's 10 years of legal wrangling before we might see a final ruling. MIGHT.

Prop 63 passed a month ago. Give the system time.

[bruss01]

I'm amazed at how people seem to think the legal system is a fast paced institution that will produce immediate results.

Look at Peruta. It was originally filed, what, in 2009? We saw no substantial change to any policy until early 2014 (5 years) and it probably won't see SCOTUS until 2018 with maybe a ruling in 2019ish. That's 10 years of legal wrangling before we might see a final ruling. MIGHT.

Prop 63 passed a month ago. Give the system time.

We're not talking about winning a supreme court case. How long does it take to file an emergency injunction? When the text of the laws has been known since July 4th and the text of Prop 63 has been available since Grusome Newsom started his petition to get it on the ballot. I think there was adequate time to have something sitting on someone's desk waiting to be filed in a worst case scenario. But it didn't happen. You don't wait until you are passing the tree-tops to pull your rip-cord, one would hope.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

While I'm grateful that someone, somewhere, is doing something... it hasn't come in time to save people from having to make some hard choices and take some actions where the timing wasn't suitable and all the details aren't in so they don't even know if the things they are doing are the RIGHT ones for their situation. People are guessing and hedging their bets with multiple strategies ($$$) because they don't have enough hard facts and they don't know what's going to be done vs not. And not enough time to wait and see before windows of opportunity close forever.

Hopefully the things that are in the "planning" stages now, will materialize into actual actions that will do us some good, while there is still time. My question is we have had injunctions previously that kept bad laws from taking effect, pending actual litigation, why not this time.

I know it's frustrating, but the reality is (for multiple reasons I cannot elaborate on here) it simply does not make sense to seek a preliminary injunction here. There will be lawsuits though and we will get an ultimate determination on whether CA can have the types of restrictions on arms it has adopted. Our office, on behalf of the NRA and CRPA will be putting out materials as timely as possible to help people aware of their options to avoid running afoul of the law in the interim.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

"as well as to aspects of the new ammunition restrictions"

???? What exactly does CRPA find acceptable in the ammo laws that just passed?

"Acceptable" and "unlawful" are two completely different things. Just because there may be portions of the new ammo laws that we do not like but may not be subject to challenge does not mean they are "acceptable" but rather are bad laws that the government has authority to adopt.

[chris]

I know it's frustrating, but the reality is (for multiple reasons I cannot elaborate on here) it simply does not make sense to seek a preliminary injunction here. There will be lawsuits though and we will get an ultimate determination on whether CA can have the types of restrictions on arms it has adopted. Our office, on behalf of the NRA and CRPA will be putting out materials as timely as possible to help people aware of their options to avoid running afoul of the law in the interim.

I know one thing. You guys are gonna have your hands full with the legislation and the Proposition that passed.

[BluNorthern]

I think the laws have to take effect before we can file.

I don't know about that.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/12/20/67381/california-supreme-court-halts-death-penalty-measu/

A ballot initiative approved by voters to speed up death penalty appeals was put on hold Tuesday by the California Supreme Court to consider a lawsuit challenging the measure.