Feedback Any Lawyers want another reason to sue the CADOJ?

[BONECUTR]

Yet another failure of CADOJ where a firearm on the Roster at dealers is not available in the drop down.
Today they said they have had multiple dealers call and email about it.





Only the non PAC model is listed. This is the sku without the Optic installed....

 

[NedSled]

Yet another failure of CADOJ where a firearm on the Roster at dealers is not available in the drop down.
Today they said they have had multiple dealers call and email about it.

View attachment 127043

View attachment 127041

Only the non PAC model is listed. This is the sku without the Optic installed....

Interesting case, what damage did you suffer?

Annoyance!

By god it's airtight!!!

 

[BONECUTR]

Interesting case, what damage did you suffer?

Annoyance!

By god it's airtight!!!

I have $1000's in guns I can't sell or I can sell them but there is no legal way to DROS them to the customer.

What a stupid response.

With their own admission there are multiple other dealers in the same boat....

 

[NedSled]

What a stupid response.

Did they admit to and ultimately fix the problem*?

Yes. But I was not able to sell these guns for awhile. SUPER annoying.

Good god the humanity! In the history of the internet this is the first mistake ever of a misconfigured webform!! It's open and shut!


*I am quite certain they will fix this. I'm sure there have been similar hiccups in the past.

 

[BONECUTR]

Did they admit to and ultimately fix the problem*?

Yes. But I was not able to sell these guns for awhile. SUPER annoying.

Good god the humanity! In the history of the internet this is the first mistake ever of a misconfigured webform!! It's open and shut!


*I am quite certain they will fix this. I'm sure there have been similar hiccups in the past.

They have not yet fixed the problem.
They have had weeks to add it to the list.
Dealers buy inventory based on what CADOJ says is legal to sell.
Dealers can not sell this inventory until they fix their mistake.
They have given no indication on when this will be fixed.
I have lost at least two sales to this from last night to today.

Imagine having a car dealership where you can sell cars cause the DMV doesn't work. It is a big deal. And Yes there system has gone down before and yes they have been sued for damages. This is just another example on why the Roster should not be in place.

 

[BONECUTR]

CADOJ finally fixed the issue. Only too 6 days.....

 

[H. Bowman]

What is Ployamer?

 

[H. Bowman]

Did they admit to and ultimately fix the problem*?

Yes. But I was not able to sell these guns for awhile. SUPER annoying.

Good god the humanity! In the history of the internet this is the first mistake ever of a misconfigured webform!! It's open and shut!


*I am quite certain they will fix this. I'm sure there have been similar hiccups in the past.

You sound like someone who would say you were just following orders.

 

[raellic]

This is how the conversation with me would go (exaggerated for effect):
"Yeah, you're right, but what are your damages? ... OK, so maybe you have two lost sales during the six days the issue was in place? ... What is your margin on the sales? ... $150 each? So your damages are $300 plus your annoyance? ... This meeting cost me $150.00 for 12 minutes of my time reading this thread and posting my own reply, and interviewing you. GTFO of my office."
The typical pattern with 2A folks is they get upset about principles and are not willing to spend money to prove their principles, so I'm not judging you. I'm posting this as a PSA that legal work costs money, and if your damages are less than the legal work, it makes no sense to hire a lawyer. Sorry for the bad news.

 

[BONECUTR]

This is how the conversation with me would go (exaggerated for effect):
"Yeah, you're right, but what are your damages? ... OK, so maybe you have two lost sales during the six days the issue was in place? ... What is your margin on the sales? ... $150 each? So your damages are $300 plus your annoyance? ... This meeting cost me $150.00 for 12 minutes of my time reading this thread and posting my own reply, and interviewing you. GTFO of my office."
The typical pattern with 2A folks is they get upset about principles and are not willing to spend money to prove their principles, so I'm not judging you. I'm posting this as a PSA that legal work costs money, and if your damages are less than the legal work, it makes no sense to hire a lawyer. Sorry for the bad news.

My response to yours would be (exaggerated for effect)
I am not saying I am out 10's of thousands of dollars but when you sue on behalf of all dealers in the state who were in the same boat it could be very large.
Not to mention this is another example of the CADOJ not even able to keep up with their own over restrictive laws.

The same laws they would violate dealers for not following.

Im not asking for me.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

I'd rather see if any lawyers could or initiate a class action lawsuit against the state of CA or the CADOJ, not on this matter, but the most recent passing of the ab and past few ones. It hurts the middle and lower class in obtaining same protections other citizens.

 

[raellic]

What I think we really need is more support from some of the many nationwide NRA fundraising initiatives to bankroll individual litigation in California on specific issues that may not be destined for the Supreme Court, but that are still important. Example, folks should try doing writs of mandate or Federal court injunctions on these ridiculous CCW carry gun policies put out by left-wing or left-adjacent Sheriffs, such as no single action, no lights or red dots, no modifications, etc. It just doesn't make economic sense for anyone to spend money on someone else's individual lawsuit with no payoff except the individual winning and the local policy potentially being changed. That's the fundamental problem with the legal system-- it doesn't exist to resolve principles, it exists to get rid of disputes and close out cases, often years later and after the litigants are bled dry of money. When I tell people that it will take two to five years and $100,000 or more for their case, plus they might be on the hook for the other side's attorney fees if they lose, many of them take another try at resolving it without lawyers. If your claim is $10,000 or less, it belongs in small claims court and nobody can have a lawyer. There is a range between $10,000 and about $100,000 where it makes no economic sense at all to pursue the dispute unless there is an attorney fee recovery in the contract or statute. So you have a large number of un-served clients who have lost less than $100k and their hands are tied economically. Maybe A.I. will help with this range, but many people are just out of luck. Bottom line, if your potential loss is less than six figures, have an attorney fee provision in the contract unless you are the one likely to be sued, in which case don't. I should do a separate article on the economics of litigation, which could be its own field. The chart I posted in one of my articles is relevant to this; although this one is for insurance defense cases, no matter the practice area, the dispute has to be inside one of the boxes for any lawyer to be interested and able to take the case. The same is true of 2A cases-- if you care enough to prove your point, then you need to be prepared to spend your own money proving your point. I have a client now who spent $7,500 to start a recent new mandate case just to prove his point, and I respect that, but this is rare.