HUNT V. CA: Declaration of Ignatius Chinn

[mikehaas]

CalGunLaws.com

HUNT V. CA: Declaration of Ignatius Chinn in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement or, Alternatively, for Summary Adjudication on Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

In this 2.5 Meg PDF document (Adobe Acrobat Reader required), 15-year CA DOJ official Ignatius Chinn attempts to explain why DOJ's interpretation and implementation of California's "Assault Weapon" law is adequate. Does he effectively counter the lawsuit's charges that many of SB-23's technical feature issues remain unclear?

- Read it (2.5M, 8 min @ 56K)
- All "Assault Weapons" stories

[bwiese]

Hmmm.

Not only that, Iggy can't even tell what's listed or not, and doesn't understand that he can't override named guns, since series membership concept hasn't existed since Jun 2001 ("taking it out of the series" has no legal significance).

Methinks Iggy has caused a few problems with his 'approvals du jour'

The lawyers don't know guns and don't supervise Iggy. Iggy doesn't know that much about guns and wants to play lawyer. That's a recipe for a circular clusterf**k, and why he's telling other DOJ staff to not interfere w/his determinations.

I love it: "I am an expert in identification of assault weapons and other dangerous and deadly weapons."

I beg to differ

[VeryCoolCat]

I don't know about you, but after it started getting to the flash supressors bit... i couldn't read it anymore... I got tired of him writing "I AM DOJ SPECIAL AGENT" and "I AM TRAINED IN IDENTIFYING ASSAULT WEAPONS"

[ohsmily]

I don't know about you, but after it started getting to the flash supressors bit... i couldn't read it anymore... I got tired of him writing "I AM DOJ SPECIAL AGENT" and "I AM TRAINED IN IDENTIFYING ASSAULT WEAPONS"

That is to establish foundation for his declaration and the "facts" he puts forth. If he doesn't say that, the opposition will challenge the evidence (lacks foundation) and then the research attorney who is writing the recommendation to the judge won't be allowed to take it into consideration when ruling on the motion for summary judgment...All declarations contain that sort of language to establish who the person is and why the facts they attest to have a basis. Normally, you can just skip over that language in the beginning of the declaration and just read the substantive stuff.

By the way, this case will not be disposed of by motion for SJ...

[Kestryll]

I read the whole thing, I am struck by the staunch defense of vagueness and subjective ruling!
It's a flash hider/supressor because we think it is, no quantitative description or measurements just opinion!
So the enitre basis of the DOJ Firearms Division's interpretation and enforcement is 'we know better than you.'? We're experts because it's printed on my door and business cards so our word is better than law?

Wow.

[bwiese]

At this very moment, Iggy's credibility inside & outside DOJ is being questioned.

'Nuff said.

[Kestryll]

That is to establish foundation for his declaration and the "facts" he puts forth. If he doesn't say that, the opposition will challenge the evidence (lacks foundation) and then the research attorney who is writing the recommendation to the judge won't be allowed to take it into consideration when ruling on the motion for summary judgment...All declarations contain that sort of language to establish who the person is and why the facts they attest to have a basis. Normally, you can just skip over that language in the beginning of the declaration and just read the substantive stuff.

By the way, this case will not be disposed of by motion for SJ...

Exactly, without establishing credentials, regardless of what we may think of them, this could be written by anyone and have no basis to be considered.

"By the way, this case will not be disposed of by motion for SJ..."

I sure hope you are right and I suspect you are but weirder stuff has happened!

[Liberty Rules]

Check out the last sentence of Paragraph 21 (lines 19-20, p. 9):

"DOJ does not consider a magazine attached to a receiver by a screw, requiring a screwdriver for removal, to be a detachable magazine."

Well they certainly had me fooled.

[SemiAutoSam]

Did anyone else notice the date on this thing ?

February 1 2007.

Does Iggy have a time machine or Is this document dated in the future for a specific reason ?

[Liberty Rules]

Did anyone else notice the date on this thing ?

February 1 2007.

Does Iggy have a time machine or Is this document dated in the future for a specific reason ?

No. That's the date of the hearing. The date he signed is at the bottom where he declared under penalty of perjury, etcetera: December 1, 2006 (it's fuzzy but it looks like the 1st).

[jmlivingston]

Did anyone else notice the date on this thing ?

February 1 2007.

Does Iggy have a time machine or Is this document dated in the future for a specific reason ?

I believe that's the date of the trial, not the date of creation of the document.

Check out the last sentence of Paragraph 21 (lines 19-20, p. 9):

"DOJ does not consider a magazine attached to a receiver by a screw, requiring a screwdriver for removal, to be a detachable magazine."

Well they certainly had me fooled.

That JUMPED out at me, certainly seems to undermine the DoJ position regarding their draft regulation.

John

[thmpr]

Just think if this blows up in their face... DOJ will no longer be an expert entity to AW cases.

[Kestryll]

Did anyone else notice the date on this thing ?

February 1 2007.

Does Iggy have a time machine or Is this document dated in the future for a specific reason ?

Good catch Sam! I missd that completely when I read it.

WTH is that all about!?! Does claiming it was sworn on date that hasn't happened invalidate it or is this just a distractionary fraud?

[gose]

Check out the last sentence of Paragraph 21 (lines 19-20, p. 9):

"DOJ does not consider a magazine attached to a receiver by a screw, requiring a screwdriver for removal, to be a detachable magazine."

Well they certainly had me fooled.

Or the first part:
"... and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto"

really?

[ohsmily]

Did anyone else notice the date on this thing ?

February 1 2007.

Does Iggy have a time machine or Is this document dated in the future for a specific reason ?

Sigh....

All court moving papers have that heading. It shows the hearing date, time and usually the judge and the department it is in.

If you look at the last page of his declaration (not the attached exhibits), it shows the date of the document.