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
  #81  
Old 10-08-2019, 3:21 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy C. Schultz for District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller: Due to unforseen circumstances and on the court's own motion, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference and Motion Hearing set for 10/8/2019 is VACATED and RESET for 10/9/2019 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Text Only Entry)(Schultz, C) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 10-09-2019, 3:39 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

MINUTES for MOTION HEARING and SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/9/2019. Plaintiffs' Counsel, Amy Bellantoni, present. Defendant's Counsel, R. Matthew Wise, present. The court heard oral argument as to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF no. 10 ) and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 14 ). The court and counsel also discussed case scheduling. After careful consideration of the parties' arguments, the court took the matters under submission. A written order will issue. Court Reporter: Kacy Barajas. (Text Only Entry) (Schultz, C) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 10-09-2019, 4:59 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,714
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

13 more days...
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 10-09-2019, 5:32 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.courthousenews.com/calif...-restrictions/

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – Emboldened by a string of recent favorable federal court rulings, gun rights advocates now aim to overturn California’s longstanding open-carry laws.

Two men from rural Northern California counties say they’ve been denied open-carry permits by local authorities and can’t even begin to start the application process because the state doesn’t give sheriffs the necessary forms. They believe California’s laws, which require applicants to demonstrate “good cause,” amount to a de facto ban and note that the state hasn’t issued an open-carry license since the law went into effect in 2012.

On Wednesday, the two men argued in federal court that the public safety laws infringe on their constitutional and “God-given” right to travel and be in public with loaded firearms.

“The state has taken a broad-brush approach and banned the right to bear arms,” said Amy Bellantoni, attorney for plaintiffs Mark Baird and Richard Gallardo.

The Siskiyou and Shasta county residents sued California Attorney General Xavier Becerra this past April in federal court, claiming the state laws violate the Second and Fourth amendments.

Their case, and several others, could impact California and the few remaining states that restrict or prohibit the open carrying of firearms. California is one of five states that prohibit carrying guns in public, as do Florida, Illinois, New York, South Carolina and the District of Columbia.

While California law does allow counties with fewer than 200,000 residents to issue open-carry permits, it leaves the decision up to local police chiefs and sheriffs. The plaintiffs say the population requirement is unfair and that the law gives local law enforcement too much discretion.

Under the law, local law enforcement “may issue” an open-carry permit if the applicant is of “good moral character” and “good cause” exists.

During a court hearing Wednesday in downtown Sacramento, the state’s lawyers said California’s open-carry laws are “firmly rooted in history” and enacted to protect public safety. They argued that the Second Amendment doesn’t give Americans an “unconditional right” to carry guns in plain view and cite the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller.

Matthew Wise, deputy attorney general, told the court that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is an “overreach” and called two of their declarations “misleading and false.”

California has enacted some of the nation’s strictest gun laws over the decades, but many are being challenged in federal courtrooms. Groups are currently challenging open-carry, magazine capacities, ammunition background check and age-based restrictions.

The open-carry lawsuit was filed just days after a gun rights advocates scored a major victory when a federal judge tossed California’s voter-approved ban on high-capacity gun magazines over 10 rounds.

“The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous,” U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote.

In addition, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled in July 2018 that carrying guns in public is a constitutional right. The court shortly after decided to revisit the decision and announced an en banc hearing. The court has since stayed the hearing pending an opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York.

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the New York case in December, setting up its first gun-rights case since Heller in 2008.

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller acknowledged the high-profile cases pending in higher courts could impact the Sacramento case, and asked whether the plaintiffs were “laying the foundation” for another.

“It’s hard not to see this as one of those cases,” Mueller said.

The judge, a Barack Obama appointee, asked the plaintiffs’ lawyer to explain how California’s process is denying access to open-carry permits.

“There is no procedure, that’s the problem,” responded Bellantoni. “The statutes provide no procedure.”

Bellantoni claims the state doesn’t provide sheriffs forms or information regarding open-carry permits even if they wanted to issue one, and called the population requirement subjective.

Mueller said she would issue a written order on both motions as quickly as she can and raised the possibility that she may stay the case pending the related matters. Baird and Gallardo seek a preliminary injunction and while the state seeks dismissal.
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:15 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Judge Muller asked, Aren’t all lawful individuals capable of jaywalking? Judge followed up with,(paraphrase) who might not be included in a category of lawful individuals......our attorney answered, Felons, those adjudicated to be mentally defective, violent domestic abusers......my words now, criminals.

State contends ban on open carry, is long standing, five years. Our declaration which the state says is false and misleading.....open carry largely unremarkable and vastly unregulated in California for 164 years.

The Judge asked whether we considered California law a “de facto ban”, our response was no. Not de facto, it is a Ban, period.

Ms Bellantoni cautioned both the judge and the state not to use the terms “public Carry”, or “Concealed Carry”. All carry is public! In your home it is “keep”, outside the home it is “Bear”, and the Constitution says in very clear terms that the Right shall not be infringed! She cautioned that concealed carry is not a Right, it is not part of our suit, and to try to conflate concealed carry into some vague reference to public carry is disengenious. Two ways to carry....concealed isn’t a right, therefore open carry must be. Open carry is banned in all counties by penal code 25850, 26400, and 26350. Immediate defense exception is an affirmative defense not a right to carry. Open carry in rural counties has never been permitted one single time, therefore not a right. Open carry in rural counties, is banned by the many hurdles assigned to the same regs that define concealed carry. In addition, to geographic and population restrictions, no method of appeal, show good cause to a single state agent, who will never issue anyway...the totality of circumstances IS A BAN.

In my humble opinion, the judge cannot find grounds to dismiss, and she tried to find that opening, by spoon feeding the states attorney. We will have dismissal on the dormant commerce clause allegation,( just my hunch, it was a throw away to give the judge something to dismiss anyway), but I, at least am confident the 2nd, 4th, and 14th claims will survive.

The P.I.? Who knows? Somehow cannot imagine a judge who is dyed in the wool blue, going back to her social circle to explain why she allowed Second Amendment guarantees in the Socialist Republic of California, but if she does not grant, we will appeal the P.I., we expected to do this. And who knows, God is in charge, the case is pretty strong. We are prepared to go up the ladder all the way to USSC, but maybe won’t need to. Thank you sincerely to all those who support this effort. Www.tokeepandbear if you can contribute, or just want an update. Thank you Alan, thank you to Charles Nichols and several others who traveled from SoCal only to be told fifteen minutes before court that the judge called in sick. Our Attorney did a great job, I think this is looking pretty good!
Mark Baird

Last edited by mcbair; 10-10-2019 at 11:53 AM.. Reason: Additional information.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 10-10-2019, 4:33 PM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 489
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Well said Mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q77g...8O6hCogfcLQ2u4
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/JeffersonStateLaser/

Make it personal.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 10-11-2019, 10:44 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wchutt View Post
You just have to give it to Mark. He is a good spokesperson for us. He is both very well spoken and sincere.
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 10-11-2019, 11:57 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,714
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm getting a strong feeling lately that some sort of revolt is on the horizon.

When the country was formed, both parties at the time were fighting over the right to keep an bear arms, but the fight was whether or not writing it down was the best way to ensure the right was protected...

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.


John Jay- Federalist 2
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
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 1:52 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.