Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: News imminent from The Calguns Foundation

  1. #1
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    The Calguns Foundation Files Suit over 10 Day wait & Releases AB144 Legal Analysis

    http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/

    The Calguns Foundation Sues State For Firearms Waiting Period

    San Carlos, CA (December 23, 2011) – The Calguns Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the California Department of Justice and Attorney General Kamala Harris challenging the policy of requiring gun owners to wait at least 10 days before taking possession of an additional firearm. The case is entitled Jeff Silvester et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al.

    The Calguns Foundation is joined in the lawsuit, filed today at the District of California Federal District Court in Fresno, by the Second Amendment Foundation and three individual plaintiffs.

    “The State has absolutely no reason to infringe the rights of California gun owners who already possess firearms when they buy another one,” said Jason Davis who is the attorney for the plaintiffs. California currently requires the registration of handguns in California. And, beginning January 2014, it will also require the registration of all newly-purchased rifles and shotguns. Notably, California keeps a current database of all residents who are prohibited by state or federal law from owning or possessing firearms.

    Individual plaintiffs Jeff Silvester, Michael Poeschl, and Brandon Combs each have firearms registered with the State of California. Mr. Combs and Mr. Silvester also have firearms licenses from the State that constitute ongoing background checks.

    “In just about every other state in the U.S., I as a law-abiding gun owner could walk in and, after passing an instant national background check, walk out with a firearm to defend myself in my home,” said Michael Poeschl. “What’s really frustrating is that California is one of the very few states that forces gun owners to register all handguns that they buy. If the State’s database saying that I already lawfully own a gun isn’t proof that I don’t need a ‘cooling-off’ period, then what is?”

    “I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the State,” noted Jeff Silvester. “It is ridiculous that I have to wait another 10 days to pick up a new firearm when I’m standing there in the gun store lawfully carrying one the whole time.”

    “As a collector, I submitted to a Live Scan background check and obtained a Certificate of Eligibility to Possess Firearms from the State of California at my own expense,” said Brandon Combs. “In the Internet era, where every California gun dealer has a computer connected directly to the State’s databases, there is no logical reason to force me to wait 10 days and make another trip simply because California doesn’t want to acknowledge the Certificate that it issued to me. I have registered guns, and I have the State telling me that I can possess guns, but for some reason I can’t exercise my constitutionally protected rights for another ten days? That’s insane.”

    “Laws that infringe on the right to purchase arms have to be more than just merely rational and must directly serve important governmental interests,” added Hoffman. “Here, the law is not just irrational but actually contradictory. We filed this case right before Christmas in the hopes that, by next Christmas, gun owners will not suffer this continuing infringement on their right to acquire firearms.”

    A copy of the complaint and case filings can be downloaded at http://calgunsfoundation.org/resourc...-v-harris.html


    --- More to come...
    Last edited by ConditionThree; 12-24-2011 at 11:17 AM.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    publishes legal analysis of AB 144

    http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/new...of-ab-144.html
    Last edited by Iopencarry; 12-24-2011 at 02:12 AM.

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    The Calguns Foundation's Legal Analysis of AB144

    Good job, fast fingers.

    Here is your download.... http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/res...is-a-faqs.html

    With *heh* one hundred and sixteen (116) distinct exemptions, I sure hope that law enforcement is paying attention when they encounter those who are lawfully open carrying. In my opinion, based on this analysis, Portantino was only sucessful in making it incredibly difficult to discern legality of carrying an inert handgun. This is where we should pick our exemptions and expect the police to honor them.

    Im pretty fond of numbers 40, 54, 69, 78, 79, & 109. Im sure others are workable with a little more effort.
    Last edited by ConditionThree; 12-24-2011 at 11:44 AM.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Good job, fast fingers.

    Here is your download.... http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/res...is-a-faqs.html

    With *heh* one hundred and sixteen (116) distinct exemptions, I sure hope that law enforcement is paying attention when they encounter those who are lawfully open carrying. In my opinion, based on this analysis, Portantino was only sucessful in making it incredibly difficult to discern legality of carrying an inert handgun. This is where we should pick our exemptions and expect the police to honor them.

    Im pretty fond of numbers 40, 54, 69, 78, 79, & 109. Im sure others are workable with a little more effort.
    Here's what I predict:

    Many, many new contacts with law enforcement, and interruptions of legal carry

    Many new legislative fixes, further confusing law enforcement in the field, but with little slowdown in legal carry interruptions

    The legislature will slowly pick off some of the exemptions, or make them so wobbly that more will end up in protracted court battles

    And (shudder) my worst fear is that some open carrier will end up thoroughly perforated by law enforcement, but said LEO will suffer very little consequence, because the exemptions so confused the event. Obviously this could have already happened, however what the legislature has done, is allowed for all this wiggle room for law enforcement. What they are after is the chilling effect on the remaining activists. "They", meaning the legislative gun grabbers

  5. #5
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    Here's what I predict:

    Many, many new contacts with law enforcement, and interruptions of legal carry

    Many new legislative fixes, further confusing law enforcement in the field, but with little slowdown in legal carry interruptions

    The legislature will slowly pick off some of the exemptions, or make them so wobbly that more will end up in protracted court battles

    And (shudder) my worst fear is that some open carrier will end up thoroughly perforated by law enforcement, but said LEO will suffer very little consequence, because the exemptions so confused the event. Obviously this could have already happened, however what the legislature has done, is allowed for all this wiggle room for law enforcement. What they are after is the chilling effect on the remaining activists. "They", meaning the legislative gun grabbers
    Your worst fear hasn't occured once in the 6+ year history of California open carry activism- even in the beginning where most law enforcement officials had zero experience with armed citizens, none of us were 'perforated'... And your'e saying because the legislature has narrowed the circumstances under which this activity is legal, that a peace officer is going to walk on a officer involved shooting of an armed citizen who has taken advantage of an exemption to AB144?

    I'm sorry, but this fear is like that of anti-gunners assuming that open carry and concealed carry equals 'The Wild West' complete with shootouts... at noon...in the middle of the street. My take on the new law is that the police are stuck with sorting out who is and isn't exempted, not being conflicted in shoot, don't shoot scenarios. Instead of spending less time with armed advocates- conducting only a breif inspection for loaded condition, officers will now have to either hook someone up and give them a ride to jail and face allegations of a false arrest or spend more time attempting to discern if the armed citizen is exempted. I like that this is much more work for police. This is exactly the opposite of what the California Police Chiefs Association intended.

    If Portantino and fellow legislators intended to chill open carry, this law with all of its 'loopholes' has only done so from the perspective that they got headlines saying open carry was 'banned'. As this analysis has indicated, it is not banned, but highly regulated. If the legislature really was going to be effective, the ban would have prohibited all firearms in public regardless of configuration for anyone other than police and military. But they can't do that- and the story of why is peppered in their very long list of exemptions. If the legislature is prompted for another 'fix' in this bill they passed, I believe it will be a win for two reasons; 1) it hurts one of their protected classes and 2) adding further restrictions will put them one more step towards a complete ban- which now, is easier to challenge in federal court. So, let them amend AB144/CPC26350 all they want.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  6. #6
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Instead of spending less time with armed advocates- conducting only a breif inspection for loaded condition, officers will now have to either hook someone up and give them a ride to jail and face allegations of a false arrest or spend more time attempting to discern if the armed citizen is exempted. I like that this is much more work for police. This is exactly the opposite of what the California Police Chiefs Association intended..
    I predict far less "false arrests" suits winning.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    The hunting season is always open for something.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    He had to put all those exemptions in to get it to pass.
    Now, everyone but me can UOC.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Well if UOC isn't really banned .....

    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    He had to put all those exemptions in to get it to pass.
    Now, everyone but me can UOC.
    I'll carry as normal.... but I doubt that to be the case for normal legal gunowners ... so I'll go to LGOC wherever I'm able come January 1st 2012.
    "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

    - General George S. Patton, Jr.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    I predict far less "false arrests" suits winning.
    I predict criminal charges being dismissed as the People learn that the STATE OF CALIFORNIA can't prove jurisdiction on the record nor can they provide a valid and properly signed complaint under oath.

    And even MORE dismissals when the People become aware that their "appearance" may be made through the mail by letter leading towards no further court action.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  11. #11
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawful Aim View Post
    I predict criminal charges being dismissed as the People learn that the STATE OF CALIFORNIA can't prove jurisdiction on the record nor can they provide a valid and properly signed complaint under oath.

    And even MORE dismissals when the People become aware that their "appearance" may be made through the mail by letter leading towards no further court action.
    Can't prove jurisdiction? For violations of the penal code? C'mon now Lawful Aim...were it as simple as you say, some enterprising lawyer would have used this move by now.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    Yes, jurisdiction must be proven on the record by the plaintiff. It is a BASIC element of a party that has STANDING to bring a court action. If the defendant doesn't object then the matter moves forward.

    Lawyers have applied it;
    http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2snju/void/22reasons.htm

    It is that simple and it is the law. Those who know the law know that to be the fact. It is all a part of due process which is guaranteed to the People. I know people who have applied the law successfully. Those who are not interested in knowing the law and their rights of due process are free to allow their chains to rest upon them. May they rest lightly.
    Last edited by Lawful Aim; 12-29-2011 at 03:28 AM.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Finally!!!

    California Senior U.S. District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii found that “10-day waiting periods of Penal Code violate the Second Amendment” as applied to people who fall into certain classifications. He found this arbitrary wait time “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs.” (The decision can be read here.) This court decision orders the California Department of Justice to allow the “unobstructed release” of guns to those who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a Department of Justice-issued Certificate of Eligibility and already possess at least one firearm known to the state. Basically, it says if someone already legally has a gun in California the state can’t make that person wait 10 days for a second gun just because it wants to.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •