Just a few minutes ago, our lawyers filed the opening brief in our important pro-gun lawsuit Doe, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al.
Put simply, this lawsuit challenges the California DOJ's absurd position that it can make up the law whenever, and however, it wants.
When the DOJ issued its new enforcement policy that re-interpreted (wrongly) state gun laws -- without any public notice or comment, and reversing its own well-established legal position -- we took decisive action.
We filed this lawsuit to fight DOJ's tyrannical 'rulemaking-by-executive-fiat' and protect law-abiding gun owners from criminal liability for just following the text of the Penal Code.
And this case is even more important after 7 new gun control bills and Proposition 63 were passed last year.
Make no mistake, if DOJ can get away with making up the law here, they will do it again on "assault weapon" regulations, ammunition regulations, magazine regulations, and elsewhere.
Here are a few excerpts from our opening brief:
The new enforcement policy is void because it alters the scope of the statute by narrowing the express coverage of the exemption. DOJ does not have the authority to alter or amend a statute, or enlarge or impair its scope through statements of enforcement policy. Morris v. Williams, 67 Cal. 2d 733, 748 (1967)....
Alternatively, even if DOJ’s new enforcement policy represents a permissible interpretation of Section 27535, the policy must still be struck down as an invalid underground regulation. DOJ admits it did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act’s minimum procedural requirements before its adoption. Instead, it argued below that the new policy applied the “only legally tenable” interpretation of the statute—despite its contrary interpretation in the past—so the APA did not apply....
In sum, the New Regulation is void because it limits the express scope of Section 27535(b)(9)’s exemption, thereby preventing citizens whom the Legislature determined were eligible from exercising their statutory rights. “[A]n agency does not have discretion to promulgate regulations that are inconsistent with the governing statute, alter or amend the statute, or enlarge its scope.” Cal. Sch. Bds. Ass’n, 191 Cal. App. 4th at 544. And “[w]here regulations are void because of inconsistency or conflict with the governing statute, a court has a duty to strike them down.” Id.
You can read the full opening brief filed today at this link.
The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.