California: Reply to CA AG Harris

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://public.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/doe-v-harris/2014-06-30-doe-v-harris-reply-iso-mpi.pdf

 

 

1

-

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

INTRODUCTION

The Opposition is extraordinary for the fact that DOJ did not get around to defending its new position on the merits until page nine of a twelve -page brief. But that pales in comparison to DOJ’s claim that its

new enforcement policy “is the only legally tenable interpretation” of the licensed collector exemption, not withstanding the fact that it is a complete reversal of its longstanding prior policy, a point the opposition utterly ignores.

Indeed , DOJ had so little to work with that it chose a diversionary, non-merits-based strategy for opposing the preliminary injunction.

 

This strategy can be summed up simply as: (1)argue that Plaintiffs are not alleging harm (despite the opening brief’s discussion at page

11), and

(2) ignore the statutory language in favor of as many policy arguments as possible (the scarier the better), even if it means disparaging existing licensing standards and suggesting that federally-licensed collectors are just gun nuts who are likely to commit crimes. As shown below, this strategy fails, and the preliminary injunction should be granted.