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
  #1121  
Old 11-17-2020, 9:48 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,267
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
I suspect the same reason why they passed on a handful of other 2A cases - Roberts is an unknown quantity on these type of cases. There was also the 4A aspect to that particular case.
They passed on the others because they were so pre-ACB. In theory, Roberts being an unknown quantity should now (post ACB) be a non-issue.

However, it is clear he isn't the only unknown quantity, post ACB.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 11-17-2020 at 9:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1122  
Old 11-17-2020, 10:41 AM
NorCalRefuge NorCalRefuge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 222
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
They passed on the others because they were so pre-ACB. In theory, Roberts being an unknown quantity should now (post ACB) be a non-issue.

However, it is clear he isn't the only unknown quantity, post ACB.
Roberts is a populist. Whatever he believes is the popular public opinion, he sides with - even if he also states he believes it's against the intent of the Constitution (see Obamacare Mandate Ruling).

He wants to cement his legacy as having been on the "right side" of history - and to that end will never rule controversially on any case, no matter how obvious the Constitutional violations might be.

Pathetic and sad for someone that was appointed to uphold the Constitution and it's principals - not "negotiate" to "save" bad policy just because it would make some people upset with him.

As much as I disagreed with everything RGB believed in - at least she was uncompromising in her principals.

IMO, a person with a noodle for a spine has no business being on the SCOTUS, let alone being the Chief Justice.

Last edited by NorCalRefuge; 11-17-2020 at 10:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1123  
Old 11-17-2020, 2:32 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,538
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
They passed on the others because they were so pre-ACB. In theory, Roberts being an unknown quantity should now (post ACB) be a non-issue.

However, it is clear he isn't the only unknown quantity, post ACB.
Rodriguez was also PRE-ACB. Just a couple of weeks. But Pre none the less. And the leftist media controversy, and leftist outrage. May have been sufficient to cause existing justices to hit pause until after confirmation.
Reply With Quote
  #1124  
Old 11-17-2020, 2:33 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,267
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Rodriguez was also PRE-ACB. Just a couple of weeks. But Pre none the less. And the leftist media controversy, and leftist outrage. May have been sufficient to cause existing justices to hit pause until after confirmation.
IIRC the cert denial came after she was sworn in (not that that indicates she had any involvement). That said, we'll know soon enough.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #1125  
Old 11-17-2020, 2:42 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,538
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
IIRC the cert denial came after she was sworn in (not that that indicates she had any involvement). That said, we'll know soon enough.
Check your dates. Rodriguez cert was denied on 10-13-20.

ACB was sworn in 10-27-20.

14 days later.
Reply With Quote
  #1126  
Old 11-17-2020, 3:36 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 632
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Check your dates. Rodriguez cert was denied on 10-13-20.

ACB was sworn in 10-27-20.

14 days later.
This fact is so frustrating. Rodriguez was the perfect case. The plaintiff did absolutely nothing wrong and the justices could have easily delayed the case until ACB was in the court. Why they decided to toss her case aside will forever remain a mystery to me.
Reply With Quote
  #1127  
Old 11-17-2020, 4:08 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,267
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Check your dates. Rodriguez cert was denied on 10-13-20.

ACB was sworn in 10-27-20.

14 days later.
Thanks for the correction, it is appreciated. I feel much better now.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #1128  
Old 11-17-2020, 5:14 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,117
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
This fact is so frustrating. Rodriguez was the perfect case. The plaintiff did absolutely nothing wrong and the justices could have easily delayed the case until ACB was in the court. Why they decided to toss her case aside will forever remain a mystery to me.
SCOTUS can't take on every case that reaches them. They tend to take cases that address a deeper issue so their ruling can straighten out related issues. NYSRPA for example was a simple (and straight forward) complaint to address, but touched on the deeper transport/bear issues. It's not clear to me what deeper issue Rodriguez would have addressed other than you can't take guns away from people who have a right to own them. Peruta would have been an excellent case post-Barrett, and there are some other good active cases working their way up now. The best case for us would be one that ends up rejecting intermediate scrutiny as an acceptable way to address fundamental 2A issues, and forces the debate to be about whether a contested issue is a challenge to the core right or not.
Reply With Quote
  #1129  
Old 11-17-2020, 5:57 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 632
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
SCOTUS can't take on every case that reaches them. They tend to take cases that address a deeper issue so their ruling can straighten out related issues. NYSRPA for example was a simple (and straight forward) complaint to address, but touched on the deeper transport/bear issues. It's not clear to me what deeper issue Rodriguez would have addressed other than you can't take guns away from people who have a right to own them. Peruta would have been an excellent case post-Barrett, and there are some other good active cases working their way up now. The best case for us would be one that ends up rejecting intermediate scrutiny as an acceptable way to address fundamental 2A issues, and forces the debate to be about whether a contested issue is a challenge to the core right or not.
They have all the time in the world to take up a case of unimportant nonsense such as

Quote:
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas’ statute regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of states, is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s precedent that ERISA does not pre-empt rate regulation.
But a warrantless theft of a non-prohibited person just wasn't quite that important to any core rights. Last term showed us they can relist cases for a number of weeks with ease. Caniglia v Strom is just not as clean of a case. I don't expect them to actually grant cert to a 2A case this term but God they need to take one fast. There are too many 2A violations occurring daily nationwide to ignore.
Reply With Quote
  #1130  
Old 11-17-2020, 6:18 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,117
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Which is why I said tend to rather than always. Rodriguez was a corner case and doesn't challenge something more than that. Guns shouldn't be taken away from people who can lawfully own them is literally what the ruling would be. Fundamentally, even lefty legislators know this. Would you see something more than that coming out of their ruling? Sure, SCOTUS could have held the case and waited for Barrett. That sure would look political to me. And is that the case they want to cash chips in for? My guess is they know there's more opportunity coming up.

2A cases have always been a topic SCOTUS doesn't want to address. 2A may mean a lot to us, but SCOTUS isn't one amendment focused. Even with egregious 2A violations, the uncertainty of Roberts made the right leaners leery of possibly setting bad precedence. Post-Barrett, the game has changed. I (and I suspect SCOTUS) would rather have a couple of strong 2A cases taken that send the clear message to lower courts to quite messing around, then nibbles that have limited impact.
Reply With Quote
  #1131  
Old 11-17-2020, 6:42 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,022
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Sure you can. Common use is not a good test. Common use is a way to restrict guns without raising alarm. If the NFA had never been passed, every AR15 sold would be select fire. Machine guns should be common but aren’t because of government interference. The common use test would say the NFA is legal because machine guns aren’t common.
You're tilting at windmills, Don Quixote. Don't preach beyond your ken.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #1132  
Old 11-21-2020, 11:16 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 323
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Plaintiffs' Pretrial Brief

Defendants' Pretrial Brief
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 4:10 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical