|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
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 6:37 PM.. Reason: updates |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
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 Why is it all the funny stuff happens to comedians? |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
* 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). |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
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 Why is it all the funny stuff happens to comedians? |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Ruling today - http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...440/228128/60/
Decision and order Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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!
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Or how about a basic test on political science. You know, to make sure the voters understands how our form of government works?
__________________
Quote:
Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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..
__________________
------------------------- |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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!
__________________
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 8:12 PM.. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
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. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
So, start it and provide what you think people need.
You might consider a more neutral title, though.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. Last edited by Librarian; 03-04-2015 at 9:20 PM.. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Appeal filed in Federal District Court: Unconstitutional Firearms Sales “Fee”
Quote:
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The grim topic notwithstanding, Judge O'Neill commits a colossal Freudian Slip by misquoting Heller here:
Quote:
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
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 ? |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Per your request, I have provided an update about the Gentry et al. v. Harris et al. case on that thread.
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
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 3:13 PM.. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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.
__________________
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
https://youtu.be/QI4y_Dk9NBE?t=15m35s
Quote:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01520160AB1511AB1511 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:
Last edited by Citizen One; 06-02-2017 at 11:03 PM.. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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:
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Are there plans to appeal this? Segment of note:
Quote:
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; 06-02-2017 at 11:05 PM.. |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|