Subdeacon Joe Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 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 Link to comment
Guest Texas Jack Black Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 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. Link to comment
Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 That don't make it right. And, when they are proven wrong, I hope they have to pay damages. Link to comment
Guest Texas Jack Black Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 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. Link to comment
Badlands Beady Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013   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. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.