• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

News imminent from The Calguns Foundation

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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/resources/downloads/category/20-silvester-v-harris.html


--- More to come...
 
Last edited:

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
The Calguns Foundation's Legal Analysis of AB144

Good job, fast fingers.

Here is your download.... http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/file/53-davis-cgf-ab-144-analysis-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:

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Good job, fast fingers.

Here is your download.... http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/file/53-davis-cgf-ab-144-analysis-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
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
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.
 

EXTREMEOPS1

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
248
Location
Escondido CA
Well if UOC isn't really banned .....

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.
 

Lawful Aim

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
131
Location
USA
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.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
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.
 

Lawful Aim

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
131
Location
USA
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:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 
Top