Rash

Rash v. Lungren

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 1015·59 Cal. App. 4th 1233·69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 700·97 Daily Journal DAR 14903·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9262
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 9, 1997G017295California2,481 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bedsworth, J.

The Attorney General appeals from a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate to the California Department of Justice Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information and the California Department of Consumer Affairs Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (State), requiring that they set aside their decision revoking Lester R. Rash’s permit to carry a firearm. Our analysis of controlling statutes convinces us the revocation was proper, and we, therefore, reverse the judgment.

Introduction

This case concerns itself solely with the construction of Penal Code sections 12021 and 12021.1. At first blush, the statutes seem impenetrable. Reading them is hard, writing about them arduous, reading about them probably downright painful. The similarity of the section numbers and the fact each section has a particular subdivision which requires discussion in conjunction with other similarly denominated subdivisions makes for tough sledding. As Alfred North Whitehead wrote of rationalism, the effort is, itself, “an adventure in the clarification of thought.” (Whitehead, Process and Reality (1929) pt. I, ch. 1, § 3.) The reader who is not inclined to such adventure and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.