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
  #401  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:13 PM
x90 x90 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: (R) controlled territory
Posts: 333
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
Who are they?
One of the judges on the June Motions Panel wrote the majority opinion in Peruta for the en banc panel.
The other two were appointed by Carter and Clinton, so they are also likely to be anti-2A.

If the AG files an emergency appeal tonight, it will be heard by this Motions Panel.

Last edited by x90; 06-30-2017 at 6:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:23 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by x90 View Post
One of the judges on the June Motions Panel wrote the majority opinion in Peruta for the en banc panel.
The other two were appointed by Carter and Clinton, so they are also likely to be anti-2A.
If the AG files an emergency appeal tonight, it will be heard by this Motions Panel.
Let me tell you a story about Judge Murguia. Before she was promoted to the 9th Circuit, she was a federal district judge in Phoenix. I was called for jury duty and she was the judge.

The case involved some type of shooting, I can't remember exactly what it was. Anyway, the judge, the judge mind you , asked everyone who was a member of the NRA, or in the gun business to stand. She then summarily dismissed everyone who had stood up.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:26 PM
Merovign's Avatar
Merovign Merovign is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
The case involved some type of shooting, I can't remember exactly what it was. Anyway, the judge, the judge mind you , asked everyone who was a member of the NRA, or in the gun business to stand. She then summarily dismissed everyone who had stood up.
Well, at least we live in a first world country.
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:36 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,280
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Sounds like a dream panel for the AG.
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:44 PM
cleonard cleonard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 145
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tiger View Post
Question... regarding their notion on profits

How does magazine capacity limits influence the profits of companies making magazines? From what I've seen standard mags often cost the same or less than reduced cap mags. Every gun needs a magazine.

What a B.S. point
You have not been able to buy high capacity magazines for many years in California. There is zero profit angle. But hey, we all know that makes no difference to the other size. The politics of identity goes right with demonizing the opposition.
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 06-30-2017, 8:36 PM
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 548
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Someone answered my last post about alleged actual studies based on police reports regrading high capacity use in criminal activity and while Bloomfuc--(oops did i get that wrong, sorry Mr. bloomberg) did commission a study it was a slanted one. It is on us to do a legitimate one that can be shown to the court in simplified language that a non-gun expert judge can read and believe.we have to be the more sensible side with the better objective information. And don't tell me it won't work because my track record of training lawyers in one field resulted in a fifteen fold win increase when judges understood what they were looking at and it was lawyers not me telling them. the alternative is to make these cases as public as possible on the Internet and put a law on the ballot requiring all judges be elected by the people they serve. Make the judicial system free of the legislative system again. Make judges served twenty years by being elected to five four year terms or not benefits or retirement. They are abusing the system now.

Last edited by big red; 06-30-2017 at 8:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 06-30-2017, 9:15 PM
bobbodaggit bobbodaggit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Roseville
Posts: 243
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
The other side begs to differ:

Robyn Thomas, Executive Director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

“When our attorneys drafted and helped pass Prop 63 last year, we knew that a gun lobby challenge was inevitable, because the law threatened to cut into gun industry profits. In fact, since the landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision DC v. Heller, the gun lobby and its allies have filed over 1000 challenges to smart gun laws on Second Amendment grounds—and lost 94% of them. We have every confidence that today’s flawed decision to block implementation of Prop 63’s limits on large capacity ammunition magazines will be quickly overturned by the Ninth Circuit, which has upheld similar policies at the local level, as have the Second, Fourth, Seventh, and DC Circuits. This specious lawsuit is merely a gun lobby delay tactic, and frankly an affront to the voters in California, who supported Prop 63 by a two-to-one margin because they know these commonsense policies will help keep our communities safer.”
Gun Industry profits? Seriously??? How is a law which bans possession of decades old magazines being injoined increase current manufacturer profits? I hope the plaintiffs quote this glittering jewel of colossal ignorance at the next hearing. Or better yet depose her.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 06-30-2017, 10:00 PM
kimber_ss's Avatar
kimber_ss kimber_ss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,705
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Not only a win for California, a win for the Nation. Just in time for Independence Day celebrations. Woot!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 06-30-2017, 10:16 PM
2Aallday 2Aallday is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbodaggit View Post
Gun Industry profits? Seriously??? How is a law which bans possession of decades old magazines being injoined increase current manufacturer profits? I hope the plaintiffs quote this glittering jewel of colossal ignorance at the next hearing. Or better yet depose her.
That's absurd. Presumably we would need to buy new magazines, and 3:1 at that. 63 would drive "gun industry profits," not suppress them.

What a dishonest douche.
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 06-30-2017, 10:26 PM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,974
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Very nice indeed! Great job to everyone!!

__________________
^^^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
  #411  
Old 06-30-2017, 11:07 PM
Lex Talionis's Avatar
Lex Talionis Lex Talionis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 479
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
The other side begs to differ:

Robyn Thomas, Executive Director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

“When our attorneys drafted and helped pass Prop 63 last year, we knew that a gun lobby challenge was inevitable, because the law threatened to cut into gun industry profits. In fact, since the landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision DC v. Heller, the gun lobby and its allies have filed over 1000 challenges to smart gun laws on Second Amendment grounds—and lost 94% of them. We have every confidence that today’s flawed decision to block implementation of Prop 63’s limits on large capacity ammunition magazines will be quickly overturned by the Ninth Circuit, which has upheld similar policies at the local level, as have the Second, Fourth, Seventh, and DC Circuits. This specious lawsuit is merely a gun lobby delay tactic, and frankly an affront to the voters in California, who supported Prop 63 by a two-to-one margin because they know these commonsense policies will help keep our communities safer.”
Part about profit is just horsefeathers. If these idiots at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence continue to frame their arguments as this all about some evil profit conspiracy by manufactures and the NRA then they will keep losing.

The 2nd Amendment was not about a right to protect commerce, it is about a right afforded to each citizen to protect themselves. If Heller wasn't clear enough for them to catch on to that--- that this isn't about hunting and target shooting, they need to be prepared to lose even more with a new SCOTUS.
__________________


THE LAW OF RETALIATION - an eye for an eye

Last edited by Lex Talionis; 07-01-2017 at 8:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 06-30-2017, 11:36 PM
Im Broken's Avatar
Im Broken Im Broken is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Pacas Holmes......
Posts: 3,389
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Well hello....
__________________
"We bury you now still while you breathe Dead as the void that you've left here in me Deeper and deeper spent memories Cremating all that would bear your disease An end is what you wanted, the end is what you'll receive Onward into battle forever we soldier unflinchingly undying and free"

Last edited by Im Broken; 07-01-2017 at 12:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 06-30-2017, 11:47 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,247
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
There's always a chance this could win the 1st round at the 9th, as Peruta did (just citing the example that seems to keep getting brought up), and then NOT be granted en banc with the 9th nor cert with SCOTUS.
Yeah, right.


Quote:
En banc hearings are relatively rare (only around 0.1% of cases get heard en banc), they aren't going to just grant it to every 2a case that comes their way - especially with the massive quantity of them that have been filed as of late.
They aren't going to grant en banc to every 2A case. Only those where the 3 judge panel decides in favor of the right to arms.

For cases in the 9th Circuit where the 3 judge panel sided with us, the 9th Circuit is 2 for 2 on taking the case en banc: Peruta and Texeira.

The 0.1% statistic is laughably irrelevant in the face of the actual behavior of the 9th Circuit with respect to firearms cases.
__________________
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
  #414  
Old 06-30-2017, 11:53 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,231
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Im Broken View Post
So can I please get a plain yes or no on the mags my dad has. Mind you he has been here since 77. Can I keep them.
For now, yes. Be discreet and don't take them out. Check back for more information, things change quickly.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 06-30-2017, 11:53 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Im Broken View Post
So can I please get a plain yes or no on the mags my dad has. Mind you he has been here since 77. Can I keep them.
If you possessed them legally yesterday, then you may continue to possess them for the time being, while we wait for the courts to sort it out.

But the way you worded your question.. "the mags my dad has", "can I keep them", the answer would be no, he cannot legally give them to you, nor has that been legal for the last 17 years.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-30-2017 at 11:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 06-30-2017, 11:57 PM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,202
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

three minutes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:14 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,247
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Highly unlikely.

This is just an injunction so the appeal process is quite different. It is virtually impossible in this case to overturn it unless the court finds "abuse of discretion" by the judge. Not completely impossible, but highly unlikely even for CA-9.
Maybe. But -- game theory.

The current SCOTUS composition, through its silence, favors the 9th Circuit's decisions against the 2nd Amendment. That is not likely to last. By not speedily issuing a decision on this case, the 9th risks having their ultimate decision overturned by a later SCOTUS with a composition favorable to us.

If the 9th Circuit issues a decision quickly, it can do so while being able to count on SCOTUS denying cert, thus cementing its decision for the foreseeable future. And it can set precedent while doing so.


So game theory clearly dictates that the 9th Circuit will overturn the PI. There is no downside to it for doing so, and plenty of upside. It has already shown that it doesn't care about established procedure or any of that except when those things favor the Circuit's desired outcome.




Quote:
Where the real battle will be is the case itself. That's the ruling that either side *will* appeal to CA-9 and where the CA-9 *will* issue a ruling. However, we are have years until it's resolved and we get to keep magazines in the meantime.
And that's precisely why I believe the 9th Circuit won't behave the way you expect it to.

Remember: they're results oriented when it comes to the right to arms.


Now, I admit that, as always, I could be wrong about this, and that it would indeed be "unusual" for the 9th Circuit to overturn a PI like this. But then, it was "unusual" for the 9th Circuit to take cases en banc. And yet they have, for every case thus far where the 3 judge panel decided in our favor.

It is plainly incorrect to presume that the 9th Circuit will behave in a fair and impartial manner. It has repeatedly shown that it will not. It's time to acknowledge the full implications of that.
__________________
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
  #418  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:20 AM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,701
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Okay, the reason I said to Neil that I would say no was that the City of Los Angeles had it's own magazine ban in place. No possession of magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds within city limit.

Let me preface this, I am NOT a lawyer, paralegal or anything other than a schmuck with a memory and an internet connection. Unless I preface my posts with 'I spoke with attorney 'X' and they said..' it is my opinion based on reading and researching and you should do your own research.

That said I remembered being told that the City of Los Angeles was going to drop their magazine possession ban in deference to the State ban which preempted it anyway in order to not have to fight the lawsuit filed by Michel & Associates. Chuck, Sean and the rest had already been working on taking down the LA ban when 63 and the other State laws were passed so LA was already having to spend and fight.

Based on City records on Feb 15th the LA City Council passed an ordnance adding a 'sunset' date of July 1, 2017 to the law banning possession of 'large capacity magazines' and the Mayor approved it on Feb 18 2017.
This means as it appears that the city ban has sunset as of 15 minutes ago and as we know the State law has been blocked by the injunction.

As I am reading it and based on the City Council records linked below possession of 'large (standard) capacity magazines is now legal in the city of Los Angeles. I have sent an email to Chuck asking to verify this but as much as I'd like to think he and his staff are busy celebrating the PI win I'm guessing they're more likely busy preparing to defend against an appeal attempt.
Either way if my read is correct this is in large part due to the pressure put on LA by Bosenko vs. City of Los Angeles.

Council File: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityc...number=13-0068

Official Action of Los Angeles City Council: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...02-23-2017.pdf

Mayor's approval: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...SC_2-21-17.pdf
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CGF.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:23 AM
x90 x90 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: (R) controlled territory
Posts: 333
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

The Motions Panel for July has been posted:

Quote:
During the month of JULY, Judges GOODWIN, KOZINSKI, and BERZON are assigned to consider ready substantive motions matters.
This panel is less likely to lift the injunction, so hopefully an emergency appeal by the AG did not get filed before midnight and assigned to the June panel.

Last edited by x90; 07-01-2017 at 12:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:24 AM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,701
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by x90 View Post
The Motions Panel for July has been posted:


This panel is less likely to lift the injunction, so hopefully the AG's appeal did not get filed before midnight and assigned to the June panel.
Kozinski, nice!
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CGF.
Reply With Quote
  #421  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:25 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

That is...absolutely hilarious if it's true
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:28 AM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,701
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

I don't want to offer a legal opinion or say this is written in stone but the data is all right there, LA did add a sunset clause to their mag ban.

And yeah, it's fricken hilarious!
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CGF.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:40 AM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 3,839
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I don't want to offer a legal opinion or say this is written in stone but the data is all right there, LA did add a sunset clause to their mag ban.

And yeah, it's fricken hilarious!
One of the only times I can say this without getting banned. Los Angeles went Full Retard.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:41 AM
gcvt's Avatar
gcvt gcvt is offline
Covfefe Nation
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,802
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I am NOT...anything other than a schmuck...
I want to add that to my signature The "..." counts as deleted words, right?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I want to be Princess Anastasia today because I feel pretty
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuarterBoreGunner View Post
Kes is really just an errand boy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I am NOT...anything other than a schmuck...
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:43 AM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,701
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gcvt View Post
I want to add that to my signature The "..." counts as deleted words, right?
I knew someone was going to grab that!
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CGF.
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:48 AM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 3,839
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I am NOT a lawyer, paralegal or anything other than a schmuck
We know who you really are:

__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman

Last edited by meno377; 07-01-2017 at 12:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:50 AM
kimber_ss's Avatar
kimber_ss kimber_ss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,705
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It took awhile to sink in, but now I see their error.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 07-01-2017, 2:08 AM
Merovign's Avatar
Merovign Merovign is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

I can't help but suspect coming shenanigans, but for now it's LOL city.
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 07-01-2017, 2:29 AM
Red-Osier77's Avatar
Red-Osier77 Red-Osier77 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Turlock
Posts: 6,197
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Okay, the reason I said to Neil that I would say no was that the City of Los Angeles had it's own magazine ban in place. No possession of magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds within city limit.

Let me preface this, I am NOT a lawyer, paralegal or anything other than a schmuck with a memory and an internet connection. Unless I preface my posts with 'I spoke with attorney 'X' and they said..' it is my opinion based on reading and researching and you should do your own research.

That said I remembered being told that the City of Los Angeles was going to drop their magazine possession ban in deference to the State ban which preempted it anyway in order to not have to fight the lawsuit filed by Michel & Associates. Chuck, Sean and the rest had already been working on taking down the LA ban when 63 and the other State laws were passed so LA was already having to spend and fight.

Based on City records on Feb 15th the LA City Council passed an ordnance adding a 'sunset' date of July 1, 2017 to the law banning possession of 'large capacity magazines' and the Mayor approved it on Feb 18 2017.
This means as it appears that the city ban has sunset as of 15 minutes ago and as we know the State law has been blocked by the injunction.

As I am reading it and based on the City Council records linked below possession of 'large (standard) capacity magazines is now legal in the city of Los Angeles. I have sent an email to Chuck asking to verify this but as much as I'd like to think he and his staff are busy celebrating the PI win I'm guessing they're more likely busy preparing to defend against an appeal attempt.
Either way if my read is correct this is in large part due to the pressure put on LA by Bosenko vs. City of Los Angeles.

Council File: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityc...number=13-0068

Official Action of Los Angeles City Council: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...02-23-2017.pdf

Mayor's approval: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...SC_2-21-17.pdf
well I got up early for this or stayed up late, either way its good news.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 07-01-2017, 4:04 AM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Osier77 View Post
well I got up early for this or stayed up late, either way its good news.
I'm not ashamed to admit I stayed up too. Was worth it. Kestryll delivers.
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 07-01-2017, 7:18 AM
Ojala67's Avatar
Ojala67 Ojala67 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Placer County
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.29bea952aabf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 07-01-2017, 8:27 AM
Mesa Defense's Avatar
Mesa Defense Mesa Defense is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,035
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I don't want to offer a legal opinion or say this is written in stone but the data is all right there, LA did add a sunset clause to their mag ban.

And yeah, it's fricken hilarious!


Thats awesome!!
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 07-01-2017, 8:54 AM
RANGER295's Avatar
RANGER295 RANGER295 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Rural California
Posts: 3,095
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Well this is good news though I suspect temporary. I have been on the road for a few days and not following things. I got up this morning and looked to see if we got the injunction and to see if I woke up a criminal.
__________________
WTB : A cheap beater .44 mag lever action rifle or carbine. Cosmetics do not matter, function and price are more important.

159

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

- Mark Twain

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 07-01-2017, 9:01 AM
Lex Talionis's Avatar
Lex Talionis Lex Talionis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 479
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My question is what would prevent the Los Angeles City council from writing a new ban next week? Does this appeals court judge reversal for the ban cover any new local ordinances too or just the state law?
__________________


THE LAW OF RETALIATION - an eye for an eye
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 07-01-2017, 9:04 AM
1bulletBarney's Avatar
1bulletBarney 1bulletBarney is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: West of Mayberry (209)
Posts: 1,550
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
The judges injunction decision can be read here

http://www.calguns.net/duncaninjunction.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by RANGER295 View Post
Well this is good news though I suspect temporary. I have been on the road for a few days and not following things. I got up this morning and looked to see if we got the injunction and to see if I woke up a criminal.
A little help to get you caught up. This judge granting the injunction did not screw around supporting his decision...
__________________
NRA Member
NRA-ILA Contributor
CGN Contributor

36 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A of treachery...
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 07-01-2017, 9:09 AM
readinglist readinglist is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 64
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Agree with almost everything else you wrote

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
It is plainly incorrect to presume that the 9th Circuit will behave in a fair and impartial manner. It has repeatedly shown that it will not. It's time to acknowledge the full implications of that.
I totally agree with most of what you've written, the 9th seems likely to do everything possible to shut down this case, including overruling the preliminary injunction (PI). If the 3 judge panel upholds the PI, I think that we can expect the other judges in the 9th to yet again move on their own accord to hear the appeal en banc, if such move is permissible under the rules of procedure.

Having said that, where I disagree with you is that courts will ever behave in a "fair and impartial matter." Over the years I've watched you evolve your analysis of the courts with respect to gun rights, and you've essentially deduced a legal realist analysis. That is to say, law is inherently political.

I tend to believe that the "legal realist" school of analysis is the one that most closely corresponds to how courts actually work in all cases. Indeed, though many people like to believe that the Constitution was somehow drafted by deity-like figures, politics (that is , the struggle for power) played a role in that as well. I've been doing a lot of reading on the history of the American Revolution and the early days of the United States, and it seems like there were real disputes between the yeoman farmers with their direct democratic town hall meetings/militias, and the financier/big landowner group over the future of the new American democracy. Reading about Shay's Rebellion it's become clear to me how much ordinary minutemen farmers felt they were getting the shaft after independence, from both the tax collectors and the merchants, and how much they were willing to fight that with force of arms. Its shocking to see the contrast in treatment of someone like Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense.

Paine was widely lauded during the Revolutionary War as the prophet of democracy, freedom and liberty, held up by no less than George Washington and the other leaders of the war for independence.

Yet on his death, Paine was generally reviled by the same elite, even though he continued to write in the same vein as before the Revolution.

I wonder why that was?

Last edited by readinglist; 07-01-2017 at 9:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 07-01-2017, 10:10 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,830
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Maybe. But -- game theory.
Injunction decisions move relatively fast up the chain and game theory also says that Kennedy would be on our side at SCOTUS to grant just an injunction - it's not precedent setting, it prevents massive taking without compensation and it has been logically resolved by the district judge.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 07-01-2017, 10:57 AM
RANGER295's Avatar
RANGER295 RANGER295 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Rural California
Posts: 3,095
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1bulletBarney View Post
A little help to get you caught up. This judge granting the injunction did not screw around supporting his decision...
Yeah, I read what he wrote... it was almost comical.
__________________
WTB : A cheap beater .44 mag lever action rifle or carbine. Cosmetics do not matter, function and price are more important.

159

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

- Mark Twain

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 07-01-2017, 11:26 AM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,166
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ojala67 View Post
great article - thanks, summarizes a good opinion nicely

Hopefully one day this case can be leveraged to smack down all mag bans.
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 07-01-2017, 12:27 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,247
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Injunction decisions move relatively fast up the chain and game theory also says that Kennedy would be on our side at SCOTUS to grant just an injunction - it's not precedent setting, it prevents massive taking without compensation and it has been logically resolved by the district judge.
That may be the case, but that doesn't change what the 9th Circuit will do. Why would it? The 9th Circuit doesn't lose a thing by acting in the way I described. It has nothing to lose, but potentially quite a lot to gain (from their perspective).
__________________
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
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 8:05 PM.




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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.