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
  #1  
Old 09-03-2013, 2:12 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees) - Appeal to 9th, 7/20/15 - LOSS June 1 2017

Bauer v. Harris
Issue: Excessive DROS Fees

Current Status as of 3/24/2014: Discovery; MSJs to be scheduled by 11/17/2014.

9/30/2013 - Scheduling order - Discovery 8/15/2014; Dispositive Motions 11/17/2014; Pretrial 2/10/2015; Jury Trial 3/24/2015.
8/07/2013 - Answer to SAC.
7/24/2013 - Second Amended Complaint.
3/8/2012 - Answer to FAC.
2/09/2012 - First Amended Complaint.
8/25/2011 - Complaint.

Trial Court: E.D. Cal.
Case No.: 11-cv-1440
Docket: http://ia600700.us.archive.org/16/it...28.docket.html

Michel & Assoc. News Release

Last edited by fizux; 03-24-2014 at 7:37 PM.. Reason: updates
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-03-2013, 4:41 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,630
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Sweet!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-03-2013, 5:16 PM
Casual_Shooter's Avatar
Casual_Shooter Casual_Shooter is offline
Ban Hammer Avoidance Team
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Did you notice how far over I've moved this part of my info? You should try it, it's fun.
Posts: 9,788
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

The link goes to an article from 2011. Does your post indicate something is happening currently?
__________________
Guns, dogs and home alarms. Opponents are all of a sudden advocates once their personal space is violated.

"Those who cannot remember the posts are condemned to repeat them"

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone used a cliché
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-03-2013, 9:24 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casual_Shooter View Post
The link goes to an article from 2011. Does your post indicate something is happening currently?
Nope, it means that I am going to work on fleshing out the info on this case and update the OP shortly*.

* a period of time approximately equal to two weeks.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-04-2013, 6:31 PM
Casual_Shooter's Avatar
Casual_Shooter Casual_Shooter is offline
Ban Hammer Avoidance Team
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Did you notice how far over I've moved this part of my info? You should try it, it's fun.
Posts: 9,788
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
Nope, it means that I am going to work on fleshing out the info on this case and update the OP shortly*.

* a period of time approximately equal to two weeks.
Excellent. I appreciate your recent posts with details of the different cases.
__________________
Guns, dogs and home alarms. Opponents are all of a sudden advocates once their personal space is violated.

"Those who cannot remember the posts are condemned to repeat them"

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone used a cliché
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-13-2014, 11:24 AM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Voted Most Ready CGN'er
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 7,493
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Another DROS fund raid in the works... seems relevant news.

Calguns discussion thread here: SB 580 - $15 Million raid of fees paid by gun owners, to fund APPS confiscation / DOJ
__________________

Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-13-2014, 6:15 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,905
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Jeezuz H - is this pace not glacially slow???

I suppose we have to take the corn holing for another year minimum - an injunction wasn't in the cards?
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-04-2015, 3:13 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,258
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Ruling today - http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...440/228128/60/

Decision and order
Quote:
In any event, the DROS fee imposes only a $19.00 fee on firearm transactions. Under any level of scrutiny, the DROS fee is constitutional because it places only a marginal burden on “the core of the Second Amendment,” which is “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 635).6
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. 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.


Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-04-2015, 3:17 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Since it would only be a “marginal burden,” can we please, please place a similar fee on the right to vote?
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-04-2015, 3:25 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,594
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Since it would only be a “marginal burden,” can we please, please place a similar fee on the right to vote?
If voter registration required ID, a background check, and costed $19, and there were no waivers or fee assistance programs available, Obama would never have been president. I would be 100% ok with a $19 voter reg fee!
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-04-2015, 3:38 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,648
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Since it would only be a “marginal burden,” can we please, please place a similar fee on the right to vote?
Or how about a basic test on political science. You know, to make sure the voters understands how our form of government works?
__________________
Quote:
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
- Thomas Jefferson -
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-04-2015, 3:55 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Voted Most Ready CGN'er
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 7,493
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

How 'bout $19 x 2,000,000? The approximate amount they've been trying to swindle for their "marginal" burden.

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-04-2015, 4:12 PM
thorium thorium is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 682
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

While we don't like the decision, this was a District Court judge appointed by George W Bush, and as an objective legal matter, it does seem he was just following 9CA precedent.

Just another reason why we need more circuit and SCOTUS level precedent and we're going to have a mixed bag of results until there is more jurisprudence out there..
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-04-2015, 4:29 PM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Under any level of scrutiny, the DROS fee is constitutional because it places only a marginal burden on “the core of the Second Amendment,”


This whole "It's not strict scrutiny, therefore the law doesn't have to be well tailored," argument is getting very frustrating.

I get the argument that going up and down the scrutiny levels that the burden can be more or less on the .gov to prove that it is a necessary law for their stated goal, but clearly stupid crap, like charging fees in excess of what is necessary to recuperate the costs of running a program, is way too easy to blow through the courts.

Where are these judges found? Do they not take some basic logic and mathematics along with their ten-thousand english classes? I'm glad that the law was written well, but we all give a damn about what it DOES!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm most famous for my positive mental attitude.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-04-2015, 4:32 PM
Ahimoth's Avatar
Ahimoth Ahimoth is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 77
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

On a positive note, I do like that they made reference to Peruta.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-04-2015, 4:34 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

The court's mention of scrutiny was pretty simply limited to it saying the law would pass any level of muster were it even necessary to perform a heightened scrutiny analysis; the core holding is that the law falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-04-2015, 6:14 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

gets back to that discussion about the religious freedom restoration act. instructions from congress to the courts on the level of scrutiny to apply..... do not forget how rulings were falling prior to RFRA being passed..... many church/state rulings mirrored what we are battling a quagmire of inconsistent rulings...

maybe we should pull back from he 9th on challenges and get some better precedence out of 5th, 6th, 7th and then go back after some bites of the apple.... geesh what a disappointing day but not surprising these guys are bound by the 9CA precedence
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

Last edited by ddestruel; 03-04-2015 at 9:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-04-2015, 6:25 PM
CrazyPhuD CrazyPhuD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 458
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
The court's mention of scrutiny was pretty simply limited to it saying the law would pass any level of muster were it even necessary to perform a heightened scrutiny analysis; the core holding is that the law falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment.

-Brandon
Did the original DROS fee pass by 2/3rds? I assume not and if the funds are being used for things other than running background checks(that are in many cases WAY behind) then doesn't it then become an illegal tax since it didn't meet the 2/3rds threshold?(or is that part of the DROS fee raiding lawsuit).
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-04-2015, 8:19 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD View Post
Did the original DROS fee pass by 2/3rds? I assume not and if the funds are being used for things other than running background checks(that are in many cases WAY behind) then doesn't it then become an illegal tax since it didn't meet the 2/3rds threshold?(or is that part of the DROS fee raiding lawsuit).
That's the state case.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-04-2015, 9:26 PM
BLC's Avatar
BLC BLC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ventura Co.
Posts: 1,349
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

There needs to be a legal stuff for idiots thread...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-04-2015, 9:52 PM
jaymz's Avatar
jaymz jaymz is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rancho Cucamomga
Posts: 6,275
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

What's with all the damn losses lately? One step forward, two steps back.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-04-2015, 10:13 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,258
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC View Post
There needs to be a legal stuff for idiots thread...
So, start it and provide what you think people need.

You might consider a more neutral title, though.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. 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; 03-04-2015 at 10:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-05-2015, 2:06 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Voted Most Ready CGN'er
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 7,493
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Appeal filed in Federal District Court: Unconstitutional Firearms Sales “Fee”

Quote:
Attorneys for the NRA, CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer’s Sporting Goods, and individual firearm owners plan to appeal the decision and take every step necessary to enjoin the State’s unconstitutional use of DROS funds. If Plaintiffs prevail, DOJ’s use of DROS funds to sponsor APPS would be deemed unconstitutional and the DROS fee will likely be lowered. Briefing will commence in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Please stay tuned for further updates on this case as it proceeds on appeal.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-05-2015, 3:00 PM
JaredKaragen JaredKaragen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They quoted it's a "marginal burden"... I.e. an infringement. No?

You don't need to pay a fee to plead the 5th, exercise the first, etc....
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-05-2015, 3:58 PM
RipVanWinkle RipVanWinkle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The grim topic notwithstanding, Judge O'Neill commits a colossal Freudian Slip by misquoting Heller here:

Quote:
(2010). The Supreme Court explained in Heller that although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 554 U.S. 626-27. Rather, the Court indicated that such regulations are “presumptively lawful.”
Id. at 627
He misquotes by using "longstanding" twice, as though emphasizing it, and then proceeds to drop that adjective from his analysis. Whatever else the DROS fee or its diversion to APPS might be, it's certainly not longstanding!

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-06-2015, 4:16 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

IANAL so I may be totally off-base, but I like the idea of an appeal on this one. I thought/think it is a pretty good case.

I'm not overly hopeful at the Circuit level but it might actually have some legs at the SCOTUS level?

Daydreams are nice. . .
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-07-2015, 9:47 PM
bandook bandook is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Out Of State
Posts: 1,203
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees) - Summary judgement for defendant 3/2/15

SCOTUS muddied the waters last year with upholding the Texas voter ID law that one had to get (the ID) on their own dime.
So it appears that a 'marginal' cost seems to be acceptable to exercise a fundamental right.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-20-2015, 10:35 AM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 573
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Opening Appellate Brief Filed

Just wanted to let everyone know that we have filed Plaintiff-Appellants' opening brief in this matter before the Ninth Circuit, here is a link: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ing-Brief1.pdf

AG Harris will file a responsive brief, then we will have an opportunity to reply, then the Court will set an oral argument date sometime within the next year or so, then we wait another 6-9 months for an opinion. We will try to keep everyone updated as things happen.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-20-2015, 11:10 AM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Voted Most Ready CGN'er
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 7,493
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Just wanted to let everyone know that we have filed Plaintiff-Appellants' opening brief in this matter before the Ninth Circuit, here is a link: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ing-Brief1.pdf

AG Harris will file a responsive brief, then we will have an opportunity to reply, then the Court will set an oral argument date sometime within the next year or so, then we wait another 6-9 months for an opinion. We will try to keep everyone updated as things happen.
From the linked doc, Summary of Argument:
Quote:
Just as a state may not charge a fee that assumes every adult bookstore will violate obscenity laws, or that every marriage will result in domestic violence, the state may not charge a fee that assumes everyone who lawfully obtains a firearm will someday become prohibited from possessing it.
Thank you for the update.

Might you explain for us the status of the similar but seperate suit over here: Gentry v. Harris - CGSSA and NRA lawsuit Challenging DOJ Raid of DROS Fees ?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-28-2015, 6:38 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 573
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Per your request, I have provided an update about the Gentry et al. v. Harris et al. case on that thread.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-02-2016, 12:26 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 859
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

10/27/2016 40 This case is being considered for the February 2017 San Francisco oral argument calendar. The exact date of your oral argument has not been determined at this time.
The following is a link to the upcoming court sessions: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...dates_2017.pdf.
Please review these upcoming dates immediately to determine if you have any conflicts with them. If you do have conflicts, please inform the Court within 3 days of this notice by sending a letter to the Court using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: regarding availability for oral argument).
The Court discourages motions to continue after this 3-day period.
The clerk's office takes conflict dates into consideration in scheduling oral arguments but cannot guarantee that every request will be honored. Your case will be assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date.
Note that your case will be set for hearing in due course if it is not assigned to this calendar.
In addition, if parties would like to discuss settlement before argument is scheduled, they should jointly request a referral to the mediation unit. Such a referral will postpone the calendaring of oral argument. All such requests must be made within 3 days of this notice by sending a letter to the Court using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: request for mediation). Once the case is calendared, it is unlikely that the court will postpone argument for settlement discussions.[10176190] (AW) [Entered: 10/27/2016 11:51 AM]

the ninth circuit is having arguments for every second amendment appeal in feb that is not a carry case
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-20-2017, 12:14 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 859
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

oral arguments just happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI4y...ature=youtu.be
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-20-2017, 4:11 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,905
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

IANAL but perhaps, just perhaps (since judges are people and people tend to like a straight answer to a straight question - which I surmise is NOT taught in law schools) how about from this moment on, when asked about intermediate scrutiny all the pro gun attorneys say "no - we do not stipulate that interest balancing is appropriate here at all" - the States conduct impermissibly chills commerce in arms and forces those who lawfully exercise their rights to subsidize the police function at hugely inflated cost given the overtime SWAT teams routinely dispatched to confiscate weapons based on a database that is at least 50% inaccurate. "oh and by the way, since this Circuit likes to say intermediate scrutiny while using rational basis we do not agree intermediate scrutiny is appropriate".Can we also remind Courts that the first duty of government is to be the guarantor of our liberty? And that they have yet to establish ANY nexus between the behavior of the the law abiding and the crime they claim they want to address?

Rant over.

She got better in my unlearned opinion
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools

Last edited by Drivedabizness; 04-20-2017 at 4:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-20-2017, 4:35 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,776
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Argument sounded damn sound and sexy, even to these jaded ears.

But our favorite chief judge is on the panel, and the other judge took notes and never looked up or even looked at our advocate.

California, much like samurai like Musashi advised, won the battle before it even began.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-20-2017, 6:21 PM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://youtu.be/QI4y_Dk9NBE?t=15m35s

Quote:
Judge: You're saying because it's a commercial sale (..) can it be a commercial sale if it applies to private transfers? Because here this all applies to private transfers as well as...

Deputy AG: It applies to any kind of transfer. And (...) taking that view, er, looking at that exception, if you called that "not a commercial sale" that is an exception that might swallow the rule.

I think commercial, meaning like, "in commerce", would be (..) an acceptable way to look at it. It's a transfer, whether it's be between a retailer and a customer, or two private parties, it's at least akin to a commercial sale.
Absolutely. Freaking. NOT. Not anymore. Not with the passing of Assembly Bill 1511.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01520160AB1511
AB1511 explicitly prohibits the lending of firearms to non-blood relations. Now, to even temporarily loan a firearm to a friend at the range, you must exchange the firearm at a dealer using a full DROS, FSC, paying said fees, etc. This activity is not commercial in the slightest. In fact, "lending to a friend" is as far away from "commercial" as you can get!

The State's argument is less than a farce. Mr. Anthony Hockel is audibly aware of the hypocrisy of the position he is charged with defending -- even if it is his sworn duty and job as Consul to do so. California's anti-gun politicians have passed so many contradictory and disingenuous laws so rapidly in their blind moral fervor, that their previously threadbare moral justification and legal defensibility for doing so has been blatantly shot. They don't get to "have their cake, and eat it too". Either they attempt to frame the DROS as covering a commercial transaction, or they need to reframe firearm lending laws. They do not get to do both. Doing both, as they have, is plainly discriminatory, logically contradictory, and demonstrates "safety" was not their concern when drafting the legislation: disenfranchisement of a minority population of their constitutional rights was. I suggest reading up on "Jim Crow" laws for reference; they are a cautionary tale, not a "how to" guide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenf...nstruction_Era
Quote:
Ultimately, Democrats added to previous efforts and achieved widespread disenfranchisement by law: from XX90 to XXX8, state legislatures passed new constitutions, constitutional amendments, and laws that made _____ registration and _____ more difficult, especially when administered by staff in a discriminatory way. They succeeded in disenfranchising most of the citizens, and ___ ______ dropped dramatically in each state.
Fill in the blanks. If there is one thing I absolutely cannot stand, it is blatant hypocrisy.

Last edited by Citizen One; 06-03-2017 at 12:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-20-2017, 7:29 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,630
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Excellent arguments by both sides. Toss up!

Win goes to the state cause it's the 9th circuit.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-02-2017, 4:01 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,951
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default A Loss .... Thomas wrote the Decision, of course

Another Loss ...... Thomas wrote the Decision, of course

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...eid=b785d5690e

Intermediate Scrutiny games again .......
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-02-2017, 10:53 PM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Are there plans to appeal this? Segment of note:

Quote:
Here, Bauer contends that the challenged portion of the DROS fee burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment because it applies to all firearm transfers, not just those that would be considered “commercial sale” in the ordinary sense. Cal. Penal Code §§ 27545, 28050, 28055(b). Thus, Bauer argues that the DROS fee does not belong to the category of “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” that Heller held to be presumptively lawful at the first step of the inquiry. See 554 U.S. at 626–27 & n.26. The State counters that by regulating transactions conducted through commercial firearm dealers, the DROS fee is properly considered a condition on the commercial sale of arms and thus falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment under Heller’s first step.

We need not decide this question because the challenged portion of the DROS fee would survive heightened scrutiny even if it implicates Second Amendment protections. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, we assume, without deciding, that the challenged fee burdens conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment. See Silvester v.Harris, 843 F.3d 816, 826–27 (9th Cir. 2016) (assuming without deciding that waiting period laws fall within the scope of the Second Amendment at step one); Fyock v.Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 997 (9th Cir. 2015) (bypassing step one because firing-capacity regulations would survive heightened scrutiny even if they fell within the scope of the Second Amendment).

If a law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as we assume, but do not decide that this one does, Heller mandates some level of heightened scrutiny. 554 U.S. at 628 &n.27. We conclude that intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate standard for analyzing the fee scheme challenged here, and we hold that the fee survives under this standard.
So if I get their argument straight: "We're not going to bother answering the question, but it's OK anyway 'because we say so'"? They then proceed to cite themselves as precedent and handwave it as intermediate scrutiny simply because they know they can get away with it. (Despite Heller's strong language otherwise.)

I think someone else here was right when they said the SCOTUS needs to come down hard and say "The 9th can't keep claiming intermediate scrutiny in 2a cases like this, forcing us to correct you every time. Stop it. Now." I wouldn't really care if they answered the actual question about fees; just that correction alone would be cathartic.

Maybe as a non-lawyer, I'm simply not appreciating the differences between law and science. In science, you're supposed to be objective and consistent, and cite external sources. In law, you only need to be able to string together some kind of logic, regardless of how convoluted and contradictory it is; and circular citations are encouraged.

(Maybe I just really don't like the mental gymnastics in Fyock.)

Last edited by Citizen One; 06-03-2017 at 12:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-04-2017, 9:29 AM
Two Nuggets Two Nuggets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 508
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Color me shocked. The ninth circus strikes again.

Hi-ho hi-ho off to appeals we go...

Hopefully.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-04-2017, 12:04 PM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 9,880
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Of course, same ol, same ol.
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
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 1:40 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.