The Calguns Foundation, 7 Californians Sue Attorney General Kamala Harris, DOJ Over Gun Delays

[Subdeacon Joe]

The Calguns Foundation, 7 Californians Sue Attorney General Kamala Harris, DOJ Over Gun Delays

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, April 12, 2013

The Calguns Foundation, 7 Californians Sue Attorney General Kamala Harris, DOJ Over Gun Delays

SAN CARLOS, CA – The Calguns Foundation has filed a lawsuit

on behalf of seven California residents today against Attorney General

Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, and DOJ Bureau of

Firearms Chief Stephen Lindley. The case challenges the DOJ’s policy of

requiring some firearm purchasers to prove their legal standing to take

possession of acquired firearms and forcing them to wait beyond the

statutory 10-day waiting period.

One plaintiff in the case, Daniel Schoepf of Long Beach,

California, was denied his fundamental right to keep and bear arms for

self-defense even after DOJ told him that he was legally eligible to

purchase and possess firearms.

In 1984, Schoepf was detained in Los Angeles County for

having two tablets in his pocket that were later discovered to be

common, non-prescription pills. The detectives subsequently released

Schoepf and no charges were filed. In 2006, DOJ firearms section Program

Manager Steve Buford sent Schoepf a letter stating that he was eligible

to purchase and possess firearms; however, in 2012, DOJ reversed that

position and instructed Schoepf’s local firearms dealer to hold back

delivery of Schoepf’s gun.

“I know I’m not alone in this, that DOJ is wrongly denying

many Californians their Second Amendment rights just like they are

mine,” said Schoepf. “I’m not a criminal and certainly not a

disqualified convict but am a law abiding citizen with my Second

Amendment rights fully intact. They left me no choice but to fight this

injustice in court.”

“Over the past year, the DOJ has been directing California

gun dealers to delay the release of firearms to people eligible to

possess them – sometimes indefinitely,“ said Jason Davis, attorney for

The Calguns Foundation. “The DOJ simply has no legal authority to

justify their policy.”

The DOJ claims that these delays are primarily due to lack

of information in their criminal history databases. In a July 2011 Los

Angeles Times article, assistant attorney general Travis LeBlanc said

the DOJ’s criminal records database system was “shoddy,” with the

‘guilty’, ‘not guilty’, or ‘case dismissed’ disposition information

missing for about 7.7 million of the 16.4 million arrest records entered

into the database over the last decade – and presumably much more for

older cases.

“In essence, the DOJ is relying upon their

improperly-maintained database to deny the fundamental rights of

individuals,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation.

“That policy is entirely unacceptable and we look forward to putting an

end to it.”

The attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Victor Otten, agrees.

“Our clients follow the law and so should the DOJ,” said

Otten. “The DOJ is gleefully enforcing a policy that deprives my clients

of their civil rights. The arrogance of the Department to think that it

can abrogate the Constitution and statutory duties set by the

Legislature is very unsettling.”

“This case really underscores the value of our DOJ Watch

program,” said Brandon Combs, Executive Director of The Calguns

Foundation. “Attorney General Harris’s hostility towards some civil

rights predictably resulted in a shift away from former Attorney General

Brown’s correct application of the law – and we are here to hold her

accountable.”

The lawsuit is entitled Schoepf, et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al. A copy of the complaint may be viewed or downloaded at http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cgf_dros-delay-complaint.pdf.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org)

is a 501©3 non-profit organization which serves its members and the

public by providing Second Amendment-related education, strategic

litigation, and the defense of innocent California gun owners from

improper or malicious prosecution. The Calguns Foundation seeks to

inform government and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own,

and lawfully use firearms in California. Supporters may visit http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate to join or donate to CGF.

CONTACT:

 

Brandon Combs

 

bcombs@calgunsfoundation.org

 

(650) 275-1015

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

This happens in ALL states just like the no fly list .Just the cost of doing business.been this way since the beginning of time.

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

That don't make it right. And, when they are proven wrong, I hope they have to pay damages.

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

No, it does not make it right ,We have injustices done every day and as we mature we learn to deal with them .I have been shooting for over 50 years and have never had a problem buying any firearm that was legal to own.The system is not perfect and we do need to pick our battles.

I lived in several states that soured, I chose to move ,yes,it was difficult but we chose to move .The gun battle will rage on long after we are gone.I choose not to sit around whining everyday about this gun control issue I contribute to the NRA even though I believe they are not sending the right message.

I also have more guns then I will ever need ,more reloading components and accessories .I prepared way ahead .This will settle out this year and we will have a so called background bill.Will it be perfect ?I doubt it .The Republicans do not want to lose the House in 2014 so they MUST reach a deal. It is a game of chess and I must say I do play the game very well.

[Badlands Beady]

 

No, it does not make it right ,We have injustices done every day...It is a game of chess...

 

 

Generally, I agree, although I don't like the Chess analogy. It's more of a used-car deal (assuming the buyer knows how to bargain). You need the car, he needs to sell it, but it's a matter of how much each side is willing to give up. In the end, the deal is made so you both win, but neither of you gets everything you want so you both lose. How much is won and lost depends on how badly he wants to sell and how badly you need to buy.

 

I can buy that the injustices are caused primarily by holes in the information database, and not through any conspiracy or agenda. Any government worker at any level has had to deal with such gaps. On the other hand, it does sound like sloppy work. On the other hand, it depends on how the particular law is written. Where I work, the applicant has to show his eligibility, I don't have to approve it by default; however, if I deny his application, I have to explain exactly why and he is then given a chance to send me documentation that addresses the reasons for denial and I may reverse my decision. If I don't reverse myself, I have to again explain why and the applicant then starts his climb up the chain of appeals.