Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-25-2017, 5:08 PM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 263
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I'm optimistic. I, too, don't think this is going to be something that happens quickly, but it's the only way anyone is going to make a big difference. A ruling in our favor on this case would effectively make any law that arbitrarily bans 'arms in common use' unconstitutional.

The effects of that would be absolutely massive. It would not only nullify the arbitrary weapons bans currently on the books, but prevent new ones from being added. It's effects could even be as far-reaching as the handgun roster, suppressors, and magazines, even though those items aren't specifically called out in the suit.
Yup. We're playing longball.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-25-2017, 6:05 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,619
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

I love how each time a case comes up there is a new group of optimistic people thinking we have a chance... despite the fact that the court composition has not changed, the 9th has gone out of their way to make sure we lose, and the continual cert denial by SCOTUS on any 2A related issue.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-25-2017, 6:23 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I love how each time a case comes up there is a new group of optimistic people thinking we have a chance... despite the fact that the court composition has not changed, the 9th has gone out of their way to make sure we lose, and the continual cert denial by SCOTUS on any 2A related issue.
You're right, we should just stop trying and let our legislature do whatever they want unopposed.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-25-2017, 7:05 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You're right, we should just stop trying and let our legislature do whatever they want unopposed.
Agreed!

Or, you know, we can actually look for salvation in other places instead of sitting on our asses and thinking a bunch of lawyers in various places will save us.

But no, lobbying is too hard, threatening lawmakers with primary challenges and funding opponents costs something, and it doesn't let us complain like typical useless calgunners. And we should show our faulty math skills by continuing to count 5 votes (or was it 6? Someone was claiming a 6-3 advantage!) where they don't exist.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-25-2017, 7:15 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Agreed!

Or, you know, we can actually look for salvation in other places instead of sitting on our asses and thinking a bunch of lawyers in various places will save us.

But no, lobbying is too hard, threatening lawmakers with primary challenges and funding opponents costs something, and it doesn't let us complain like typical useless calgunners. And we should show our faulty math skills by continuing to count 5 votes (or was it 6? Someone was claiming a 6-3 advantage!) where they don't exist.
Why not both? We can lobby by day, and complain on calguns by night!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-25-2017, 7:21 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Agreed!

Or, you know, we can actually look for salvation in other places instead of sitting on our asses and thinking a bunch of lawyers in various places will save us.

But no, lobbying is too hard, threatening lawmakers with primary challenges and funding opponents costs something, and it doesn't let us complain like typical useless calgunners. And we should show our faulty math skills by continuing to count 5 votes (or was it 6? Someone was claiming a 6-3 advantage!) where they don't exist.
There is one, and only one, path to liberty from the point we're at that doesn't involve politicians: violent revolution.

Everything else involves politicians. Going through the courts is just a more indirect way of going through politicians, since judges that sit on the courts are nominated by them. Legislation (obviously) involves politicians directly. And even an Article V Convention involves politicians (though at the state level).

So as much as the current court composition almost certainly will yield us nothing, the future court composition can. That future court composition is precisely what this lawsuit is banking on.

Is it a gamble? Of course. Everything is when it comes to convincing politicians to back your position. But that is the only type of gamble that's on the table. Every other path, short of violent revolution, leads to liberty's destruction. And the history of violent revolution is such that it, too, almost certainly leads to tyranny.

And only an Article V Convention or violent revolution will make it possible to put mechanisms into place that would bypass politicians for the purpose of protecting liberty.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-25-2017, 7:36 PM
JCHavasu's Avatar
JCHavasu JCHavasu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: That's classified...
Posts: 203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Rupp v Becerra (AWCA): US Dist Ct Cent Dist CA, Case 8:17-cv-00746

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Why would it have to go to SCOTUS to do us any good? If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't a district court win that goes un-appealed pretty much be the end of the AW ban right then and there?

That's what happened with Peruta - CA became effectively shall-issue (until the case was appealed to the 9th). In Sylvester, the second 10-day waiting period went away statewide after the district court win (also until it was appealed to the 9th).

Of course, it's wishful thinking that Becerra wouldn't appeal a loss. Of course he would. But in the rare event that he didn't, I think that would be the end of the case and we all win. Unless I'm missing something, which I very well might be.

If Becerra lost in the district court, and didn't appeal, but it didn't have any statewide bearing, then he would have very little motivation to try to win at the district court level. He could just give in and say "ok fine, Orange County you can have your assault weapons, but the rest of CA can't". But I don't think it works that way - I believe a district court decision has bearing on everyone who is affected by the laws that were challenged.


You answered your own question with "...it's wishful thinking that Becerra wouldn't appeal a loss." We may get lucky and a judge would find in our favor, but the oligarchs would still appeal and eventually the ninth circuit would find against us, thus requiring it to get to the Supreme Court to do us any good.

Yes I agree in theory, that we could win at a lower court but do you really think Brown, and our next governor, Newsom, would let that stand without a fight?

Beyond that, we WANT a Supreme Court decision in our favor. That would effectively end this. A lower court ruling would still allow other districts to uphold this BS.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt

“There is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken

Last edited by JCHavasu; 04-25-2017 at 7:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-25-2017, 9:43 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,891
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
While filed in Orange County, this lawsuit seeks statewide relief. There is no need for a duplicative lawsuit in another district. Should we prevail here, those of you in the Eastern District would benefit just as much as everyone else.
Is there basis to going to a CA and saying - we are challenging YOUR Circuit error - either fix it or we are going to SCOTUS"?

Seems like the obvious choice for those of us in 9CA - since we know precedent here will kill us or see us dismissed anyway
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-25-2017, 10:49 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,037
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Seems unlikely - since it starts in a US District Court, ordinarily it runs through a Circuit Court of Appeal - in this case the well-reviled 9th - past suit timings suggest around 2 years at each stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I love how each time a case comes up there is a new group of optimistic people thinking we have a chance... despite the fact that the court composition has not changed, the 9th has gone out of their way to make sure we lose, and the continual cert denial by SCOTUS on any 2A related issue.
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!

Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-26-2017, 6:40 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,597
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
That's where the courts kick in.

Since we've reached the point of political courts, might as well have the current administration pack them with "living constitution," but full right leaning types. You know, the guys who can invent any gun right out of thin air the way leftist judges invent rights that suit their agenda.

We've seen with "nuclear option" that payback is a b!#@. Time to play the game in reverse and the court composition is more than favorable at the moment.
The only way the courts will actually help us is if they are completely gutted and filled with pro 2a justices. Even then, we have no idea how far they are willing to go. Actual freedom is terrifying to people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You're right, we should just stop trying and let our legislature do whatever they want unopposed.
They are completely unopposed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-26-2017, 2:50 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,151
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Folks, let's try to keep the discussion-type posts over in the thread in Politics - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1327871 - and leave this one for things more closely related to court activity on this case.

A few posts moved to that thread.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 04-26-2017 at 2:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-26-2017, 10:53 PM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,971
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

tag
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-27-2017, 8:49 AM
oc16's Avatar
oc16 oc16 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Orange
Posts: 674
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

like described above this case is designed for SCOUTS and not the 9th. if California flinches and realizes SCOUTS will destroy the ban they will need to rule in our favor even with a en bac. IF California is hell bent on saying no then SCOUTS will deal with it. I would also like to remind you that the word on the street is the moderate supreme court justice has announced his resignation during the summer thats another pro second judge on the panel.
__________________
retreat! we must go comrade we will fight again another day.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-27-2017, 9:38 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

At first I thought it was a typo but then you said it 2 more times



Just poking fun, I know it was probably auto-correct
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-28-2017, 2:30 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 281
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was just reading the SCOTUS cert denial for Friedman v. Highland park and found it interesting to see what Scalia and Thomas had to say in their published cert denial dissent:

Quote:
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409. Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id.,at 412. Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
Bolded portions are particularly relevant when considering the complaint raised in Rupp v. Becerra....
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-28-2017, 2:49 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,619
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You're right, we should just stop trying and let our legislature do whatever they want unopposed.
Hmm, can't seem to find a single word where I said stop trying.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-28-2017, 3:09 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,564
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
Bolded portions are particularly relevant when considering the complaint raised in Rupp v. Becerra....
Good catch, Nicky.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-28-2017, 8:57 PM
kustomkat1950's Avatar
kustomkat1950 kustomkat1950 is offline
Concerned Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ........In a Constitutional Concerned Community.........
Posts: 794
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

To me, it seems personal with Trump, 9th keeps blocking his immigrant ban, so he would like to disband it...there is a slight chance...sigh.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04...rt-of-appeals/
__________________
“When the system breaks down, you get to vote from the rooftops. It’s one of the last best traditions of western enlightenment.” - Cody Wilson

CGN Contributor
NRA Lifetime Member
"When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-29-2017, 9:58 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Just a little background on Hon. Josephine Staton, the judge assigned to this case. She was an Obama appointee. Here are her answers to the questions asked to her before her confirmation as a District Court judge: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo...ucker-QFRs.pdf.

This segment of Q&A, with questions asked by then-Senator Jeff Sessions is particularly notable:

Quote:
As you may know, President Obama has described the types of judges that he will nominate to the federal bench as follows: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” What role do you believe that empathy should play in a judge’s consideration of a case?
Response: None. I believe that empathy is a character trait that may cause a judge to be more courteous and respectful in interacting with attorneys, litigants, jurors, witnesses, and staff. Empathy also may allow a judge to fully understand the facts presented by all parties. However, if empathy infects the judicial decisionmaking process, then the judge has failed to meet his or her responsibility of serving as a neutral, unbiased arbiter. Cases should be decided based solely on an objective consideration of the facts and an analysis of applicable law, unclouded by a sense of empathy.

Do you think that it’s ever proper for judges to indulge their own subjective sense of empathy in determining what the law means?
Response: No.
i. If so, under what circumstances?
Response: Please see my previous answer.

Do you think it is ever proper for judges to indulge their own values in determining what the law means?
Response: No.
a. If so, under what circumstances?
Response: Please see my previous answer.

Do you think it is ever proper for judges to indulge their own policy preferences in determining what the law means?
Response: No.
a. If so, under what circumstances?
Response: Please see my previous answer.
She's basically saying, "Obama wants me to have empathy - sure, I've got empathy, I guess. But don't expect me to use it when I rule on cases."


Also, this segment, questions asked by then-Senator Tom Coburn:

Quote:
Some people refer to the Constitution as a “living” document that is constantly evolving as society interprets it. Do you agree with this perspective of constitutional interpretation?
Response: I have never referred to the Constitution as a “‘living’ document that is constantly evolving,” and I do not agree with that perspective. I believe that the Constitution is an immutable document establishing rights, principles, obligations and relationships, and that the courts must apply it to a changing society. The Constitution should be interpreted by a district court judge with reference to its language and to the decisions of higher courts.

In your view, is it ever proper for judges to rely on contemporary foreign or international laws or decisions in determining the meaning of the Constitution?
Response: No.

Would you consider foreign law when interpreting the Eighth Amendment? Other amendments?
Response: Please see my previous answer.
She did issue a TRO against Trump's travel ban. On the other hand, she has never ruled against the constitution as far as I can find. I'm not aware of any 2a cases that have come before her.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 09-29-2017 at 10:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-29-2017, 10:21 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,402
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I love how each time a case comes up there is a new group of optimistic people thinking we have a chance... despite the fact that the court composition has not changed, the 9th has gone out of their way to make sure we lose, and the continual cert denial by SCOTUS on any 2A related issue.
Sadly have to agree with you on this one. CA AW laws have already been challenged and even with Scalia on the bench, they were summarily shot down in the lower courts and not picked up by SCOTUS.

Hell, we can't even get traction on the roster cases and those involve pistols and we have been banned from any new pistols for over a decade!
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 09-29-2017, 11:32 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Hell, we can't even get traction on the roster cases and those involve pistols and we have been banned from any new pistols for over a decade!
Not that it makes it any less outrageous, but just as a matter of fact, it's "only" been 4 years

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...013-BOF-03.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-10-2017, 11:32 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default Present status?

Answering my own question. A first amended complaint was filed and served on Sept. 11, 2017. It appears that no answer or response has been filed. Would be nice if someone would post a brief summary of the changes in the complaint. Anything of substance or merely fix typos?

Last edited by BAJ475; 10-10-2017 at 11:36 AM.. Reason: Posted before I was ready.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:19 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.