|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 11, 2012, 08:45 PM | #1 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
CGF/SAF sues CA DOJ, San Francisco and Oakland
So we have a new CA case to be added to the list!
Press Release Quote:
The docket is here:http://www.archive.org/download/gov....15.docket.html The complaint is here:http://www.archive.org/download/gov....253515.1.0.pdf If you are from CA, you owe it to yourself to support the work that the CalGuns Foundation is doing for your 2A rights. |
|
May 12, 2012, 11:20 AM | #2 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
There is a similar case in Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...rn#post5051515 Wisconsin Carry Inc v Milwaukee In the Milwaukee case a citizen used a firearm to defend himself, the DA declared it a justified shooting, but the citizen never had his firearm returned to him by the Milwaukee PD. In the case of the Milwaukee man though - I don't think charges were ever even brought. So that might be a difference between the CA and WI cases. |
May 12, 2012, 11:15 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
There were no charges ever brought against the guy in WI. That is correct. The guy shot a robber, in the process of an armed (shotgun) robbery. DA said it was justified.
|
May 14, 2012, 08:48 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
It's theft, plain and simple.
|
October 23, 2012, 11:51 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Any update? The MTD was set to be heard last week. The opposition was a pretty nifty piece, and of course it helps that both the City of Oakland and the City of San Francisoc have conceded that requiring a gun owner to provide proof of ownership prior to return of a seized firearm is not allowed or required under the Penal Code. The DOJ will probably keep fighting though, as Kamela Harris is vehemently anti-gun, and has put in place a number of administrative hurdles to the exercise of rights by citizens. In additiont o this nonsense (which appears to have no purpose other than dissuading gun owners against whom no charges are filed from attempting to retieve their property), she has instituted a policy to put "holds" on background clearances for purchases wheneever they are able to locate a prior criminal complaint filed against the purchaser whenever the resolution of the case does not appear in the court's record and/or the DOJ cannot ascertain whether the misdemeanor charges was a crime of violence. Both grounds are bogus--the code only allows the denial of the right to purchase to misdemeanants CONVICTED of a crime of violence--and if there is no record of conviction, then there was no conviction, right? Nonetheless, the DOJ is requiring people to go back decades to prove that charges were resolved in their favor, sometimes decades ago. Again, CalGuns is on the job.
|
Tags |
cgf , saf , second amendment |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|