Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Another Request For Injunction Against CA DOJ


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/injunction_sought_against_california_assault_weapons_regulations_by_5_gun_owners_4_civil_rights_groups?utm_campaign=0103cawbpressre&utm_medium=email&utm_source=firearmspolicycoalition

 

RIVERSIDE, CA (January 3, 2018) — Attorneys for 5 California gun owners and 4 civil rights advocacy organizations filed for an injunction against the state’s Department of Justice regulations on so-called “assault weapons.”

In the request for an injunction, the plaintiffs argue that “they, and many others similarly situated, will suffer irreparable injury if they are forced to comply with the registration requirement in accordance with the Challenged Regulations by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2018. In essence, they and many others would either be illegally forced to register or illegally denied the ability to register their firearms.”

Also filed was an amendment to the case, adding Craig Stevens as an individual plaintiff suing over the regulations. According to the filing, Stevens is “currently an active-duty member of the California Army National Guard, having the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC), and is currently and as of December 23, 2017, deployed overseas to the Middle East.”

Stevens has tried multiple times to comply with the DOJ regulations on “assault weapons,” but the DOJ rejected his application even though there was no legal basis for them to deny him the registration of his firearm. “The declaratory and injunctive relief, and/or mandamus relief, sought in this action are necessary as set forth herein, to vindicate his right (and obligation), and the rights (and obligations) of others similarly situated, to register this legally-owned firearm as the only available means by which to maintain lawful possession of such firearms according to the DOJ’s regulatory scheme,” the court filing says.

About the new filings, plaintiffs’ attorney George M. Lee explained, “As we show in our motion for an injunction, the State’s regulatory and enforcement scheme was designed and functions to separate law-abiding people from their rights, property, and statutory obligations. We seek in this case to make DOJ follow the same laws they impose on others –  and protect law-abiding gun owners in the process.”

Raymond DiGuiseppe, co-counsel and former California deputy attorney general, agreed. “The Department of Justice has grossly exceeded their authority and is illegally imposing its will on thousands of California gun owners. Their regulations and actions undermine the rule of law and put potentially hundreds of thousands of people at risk for serious criminal liability. We look forward to resolving these issues as quickly as possible and protecting California’s law-abiding gun owners from this regulatory overreach.”

Named as defendants are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Chief of the DOJ Bureau of Firearms Stephen Lindley, the California Department of Justice itself, Director of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) Debra Cornez, and State Controller Betty Yee.

The lawsuit is backed by The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF).

 

 

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/holt_v_california_attorney_general_xavier_becerra?utm_campaign=0103cawbpressre&utm_medium=email&utm_source=firearmspolicycoalition

 

 

The 55 page document here:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/3646/attachments/original/1512070807/2017-11-30-Holt-v-Becerra-complaint-petition.pdf?1512070807

 

In part:

 

INTRODUCTION 1. At the heart of a democratic government designed to serve and protect its citizens is “a system of checks and balances designed to prevent any governmental branch from obtaining arbitrary or inordinate power.” (California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 830.) This is the constitutional theory underlying the separation of powers doctrine. (Ibid.) “[T]ime has blurred the purity of division of governmental functions, … particularly with the advent of administrative agencies.” (Ibid.) Since that advent, there has been “much more concern for avoiding or minimizing unchecked power…’” within administrative agencies. (Ibid., quoting McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 348, 361-362.) 2. The California Legislature has responded to these concerns by establishing an agency rule-making oversight process under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (see generally, Tit. 2, Div. 3, Part 1, Ch. 3.5 of the Government Code, § 11340 et seq.), administered through the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for the specific purpose of preventing, and “[c]orrecting the problems that have been caused by,” the needless or excessive expenditure of “ubstantial time and public funds . . . in adopting regulations” that impose an “unnecessary burden” upon private persons and entities through regulations that are “unclear and unnecessarily complex,” are not “authorized by statute,” or are not “consistent with other law.” (Gov. Code, § 11340, subds. (b)-(f).) 3. As such, all administrative agencies must comply with the APA in promulgating rules designed to implement laws they are entrusted with enforcing, unless the Legislature has carved out a specific exception for certain rule-making. Any rulemaking under such an exemption must be strictly limited to the scope of the exemption. 3 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND VERIFIED PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEILER EPSTEIN ZIEGLER & APPLEGATE LLP Attorneys at Law There is no “free pass” from these important proscriptions for “hot-button” or politicallycharged matters of public concern – like the regulation of so-called “assault weapons” – when agency administrators believe they have a favorable political climate for pushing through unchecked “regulations” that attempt to force the law into line with one side of the debate. These limitations on agency power are of the utmost importance in such contexts, because oversight is necessary to ensure that the regulatory activity is not driven by whimsical or biased political tides that blithely ignore any competing points of view. 4. Today, Plaintiffs are forced to bring this action because the California Department of Justice (DOJ) has engaged in this very sort of unbridled improper exercise of power in promulgating and enforcing the broad and sweeping set of “assault weapons” regulations that it successfully pushed through OAL, with no oversight or public input at all. Under the guise of promulgating APA-exempt regulations to effectuate the new “assault weapons” registration requirement under Penal Code section 30900,1 and without consulting with gun owners, users, or industry experts, the DOJ has completely revamped the existing regulatory scheme. If upheld, this new regulatory scheme would not only subvert the crucial “checks and balances” of the APA but it would effectively rewrite the statutory law by vastly expanding and significantly altering the scope of both the new and pre-existing “assault weapons” classifications. (11 Cal. Code of Regs. [“CCR”] §§ 5469; 5470, subds. (a), (b), & (d); 5471; 5472, subds. (d), (e), (f), & (g); 5473, subds. (b)(1) & (b)(3); 5474; 5474.1, subd. (b); 5474.2; 5475, subds. (a) & (c); 5478.). Collectively, these are the “Challenged Regulations.”

Link to comment

Also, call and write your members of the CA Legislature and demand that they investigate AG Becerra for dereliction of duty and possible civil rights violations for his dilatory approach to issuing the documents that are now required for vendors of ammunition.  

Link to comment
  • 5 weeks later...

Dilatory | Define Dilatory at Dictionary.com

www.dictionary.com/browse/dilatory
 

tending to delay or procrastinate; slow; tardy. 2. intended to cause delay, gain time, or defer decision: a dilatory strategy.

 

 Yeah, I had to look it up, and learned a new word today.

Link to comment

I have always wondered why folks filing lawsuits do not go after the records of the bureaucrats to show the courts and the public that at one time they believed Justice was blind. And then show the historical evidence when said bureaucrat apparently stepped away from that credo due to their own corrupted principles. Undermining bureaucrats is the key, in my opinion. Make it personal... They did.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I have always wondered why folks filing lawsuits do not go after the records of the bureaucrats to show the courts and the public that at one time they believed Justice was blind. And then show the historical evidence when said bureaucrat apparently stepped away from that credo due to their own corrupted principles. Undermining bureaucrats is the key, in my opinion. Make it personal... They did.

+1

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.