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 04-24-2017, 12:59 PM
eville eville is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: san leandro
Posts: 901
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default Rupp v Becerra (AWCA): US Dist Ct Cent Dist CA, Case 8:17-cv-00746

Oops. Rupp v Becerra

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...ns-control-act
__________________
Steve

Last edited by eville; 04-24-2017 at 1:00 PM.. Reason: Need to edit title.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-24-2017, 1:03 PM
IGORR IGORR is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: East Bay
Posts: 231
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Awesome, Happy Monday
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-24-2017, 1:10 PM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,680
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

I was just coming here to post this!

Quote:
Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today announced it is supporting, along with the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), an important Second Amendment lawsuit challenging California’s newly expanded Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA).

The suit, Rupp v. Becerra, seeks to have the courts declare the AWCA unconstitutional because the ill-conceived law will do nothing to stop terrorists or violent criminals, and infringes on the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

...
__________________
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
  #4  
Old 04-24-2017, 1:11 PM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,680
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Oh, and don't miss this part:

Quote:
Multiple lawsuits challenging other aspects of the unconstitutional laws passed last year are also in the works and will be filed in the coming weeks. Rupp is the first of a number of NRA/CRPA sponsored lawsuits soon to be filed that will challenge the “gunmageddon” bills, as well as the new laws enacted by Proposition 63
This fight is just getting started.
__________________
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
  #5  
Old 04-24-2017, 1:18 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 880
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Folks, these lawsuits are not inexpensive to undertake. I will continue to support NRA & CRPA financially. Hope others do so as well.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-24-2017, 1:42 PM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 691
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Has anyone posted the filing yet? Interested in reading their actual argument.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-24-2017, 1:44 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,597
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I'm interested to see how this goes, not that I have any faith in the courts to have anything resembling the honesty to rule correctly in this case. I'm sure the twisting and turning they do to rule against it will be fun to watch.
__________________

Last edited by Bhobbs; 04-24-2017 at 1:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-24-2017, 2:24 PM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,087
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Any chance of getting to scotus during trumps first term?
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-24-2017, 4:06 PM
andytothemax's Avatar
andytothemax andytothemax is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here is a copy of the complaint: http://www.andrewwatters.com/files/Rupp-v-Becerra.pdf
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-24-2017, 4:15 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,143
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Let's use this one, in the litigation forum, for specific case-related info.

The rest ought to go to the Politics and Activism thread, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1327871

ETA, I expect we'll need several paired threads in that arrangement...
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. 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; 04-24-2017 at 4:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-24-2017, 4:15 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 572
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Link to Complaint: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/..._Complaint.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-24-2017, 4:23 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,143
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default Prayer for relief

Court web site: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/
Southern Division is in Santa Ana.

What the suit requests:
Quote:
Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
1. Enter a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that California Penal Code sections 30510(a), 30515(a)(1)(A-C), 30515(a)(1)(E-F), 30515(a)(3), 30520, 30600, 30605, 30925, and 30945, as well as California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 5499, are each unconstitutional facially and to the extent they apply to “assault weapons” or, alternatively, to the extent they prohibit any semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine having a “pistol grip,” “flash suppressor,” “thumbhole stock,” or “telescoping” stock, or any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that is over 26 inches in overall length, because such provisions unlawfully infringe on the right of the People to keep and bear arms that are in common use contemporarily, in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; arbitrarily deprive Plaintiffs of protected property interests und the Due Process Clause; and unconstitutionally take property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause;

2. Issue an injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents, and employees from enforcing any provisions of California Penal Code sections 30510(a), 3051 5(a)(1)(A-C), 3051 5(a)(1 )(E-F), 3051 5(a)(3), 30520, 30600, 30605, 30925, 30945, and California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 5499, prohibiting “assault weapons” or, alternatively, to the extent they prohibit the acquisition, possession, or transfer of any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine having a “pistol grip,” “flash suppressor,” “thumbhole stock,” or “telescoping” stock, or any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that is over 26 inches in overall length;

3. Award remedies available pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and all reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or any other applicable law; and

4. Grant any such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. 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; 04-24-2017 at 4:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-24-2017, 4:27 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,143
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidsnake87 View Post
Any chance of getting to scotus during trumps first term?
Seems unlikely - since it starts in a US District Court, ordinarily it runs through a Circuit Court of Appeal - in this case the well-reviled 9th - past suit timings suggest around 2 years at each stage.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. 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
  #14  
Old 04-24-2017, 5:09 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 880
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Seems unlikely - since it starts in a US District Court, ordinarily it runs through a Circuit Court of Appeal - in this case the well-reviled 9th - past suit timings suggest around 2 years at each stage.
That would seem normal for this type of action; six to eight years taking into account delays, filings, hearings, enbanc panels, stonewalling, etc. Hopefully by the time it approaches the outer Galaxy of SCOTUS, the court will have changed in our favor. Good luck, but I will still contribute.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-24-2017, 5:11 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,674
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
That would seem normal for this type of action; sixtyto eight years taking into account delays, filings, hearings, enbanc panels, stonewalling, etc.
Adjusted time frame a bit...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-24-2017, 6:04 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,612
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Looking forward to losing another one to the 9th.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-24-2017, 9:11 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

this is actually good timing
by the time they are at the cert stage
Trump will get to appoint at least one more justice maybe more

Last edited by wolfwood; 04-25-2017 at 1:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-24-2017, 9:49 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
This fight is just getting started.
I was starting to wonder if there was going to be any challenge to the over-reach that was foisted upon law-abiding CA residents last year.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-24-2017, 10:19 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,465
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

A couple of questions. What about potential plaintiffs in the Eastern District of California either joining or filling their own suits?

In my situation, my son is presently prohibited from inheriting my BB AWs (9 total) as long as he is a California resident, even though he already has several BB AWs of his own and despite the fact that both of us have CA and NV CCWs, which goes a long way in proving that we are responsible law abiding residents of CA who are trusted to carry loaded firearms in public in this state.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-24-2017, 10:39 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 572
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
A couple of questions. What about potential plaintiffs in the Eastern District of California either joining or filling their own suits?

In my situation, my son is presently prohibited from inheriting my BB AWs (9 total) as long as he is a California resident, even though he already has several BB AWs of his own and despite the fact that both of us have CA and NV CCWs, which goes a long way in proving that we are responsible law abiding residents of CA who are trusted to carry loaded firearms in public in this state.
While filed in Orange County, this lawsuit seeks statewide relief. There is no need for a duplicative lawsuit in another district. Should we prevail here, those of you in the Eastern District would benefit just as much as everyone else.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-25-2017, 7:42 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 880
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Looking forward to losing another one to the 9th.
We know the drill. I expect any fruit from this to benefit my children. By that time I will likely no longer be driving, have dispersed my collection, and continue to support NRA and CRPA through donations.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-25-2017, 8:41 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
We know the drill. I expect any fruit from this to benefit my children. By that time I will likely no longer be driving, have dispersed my collection, and continue to support NRA and CRPA through donations.
So would it be fair to say you are a "true believer", despite all the evidence to the contrary?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-25-2017, 8:44 AM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,671
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Very nice


Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
__________________
"I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." Matthew Quigley
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-25-2017, 9:05 AM
JCHavasu's Avatar
JCHavasu JCHavasu is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: That's classified...
Posts: 202
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This is excellent! Unfortunately the fight will be long I'm sure. It will have to go to the US Supreme Court to do us any good, as I don't see it going well within the 9th circuit. I would have loved to have my name on that document!
__________________
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt

“There is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken

Last edited by JCHavasu; 04-26-2017 at 6:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-25-2017, 10:17 AM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,564
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCHavasu View Post
This is excellent! Unfortunately the fight will be long I'm sure. It will have to to the US Supreme Court to do us any good, as I don't see it going well within the 9th circuit. I would have loved to have my name on that document!
Not coincidentally, the plaintiff is a Calgunner.

The complaint looks really good. Very sensible and logical. And therefore almost certain to be shot down by multiple US courts in California!

I guess it's heading for the SCOTUS!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-25-2017, 10:21 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 880
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
So would it be fair to say you are a "true believer", despite all the evidence to the contrary?
Yes. I fully realize that this process may take a generation, or two on the outside. My hope is that a future SCOTUS will eventually hear 2A cases, and with the correct ideology may set our children free, so to speak. Sometimes it takes the most gross of violations by a governing body such as our legislature to finally spark action, and here we are. If the lawsuits we are discussing are resolved in our favor sooner than we expect, all the better; either way, I will continue to support financially NRA/ILA & CRPA, no matter where I reside. This is going to be an interesting two weeks. I fully expect the post count on this forum to set records.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-25-2017, 10:21 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCHavasu View Post
This is excellent! Unfortunately the fight will be long I'm sure. It will have to to the US Supreme Court to do us any good, as I don't see it going well within the 9th circuit. I would have loved to have my name on that document!
Why would it have to go to SCOTUS to do us any good? If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't a district court win that goes un-appealed pretty much be the end of the AW ban right then and there?

That's what happened with Peruta - CA became effectively shall-issue (until the case was appealed to the 9th). In Sylvester, the second 10-day waiting period went away statewide after the district court win (also until it was appealed to the 9th).

Of course, it's wishful thinking that Becerra wouldn't appeal a loss. Of course he would. But in the rare event that he didn't, I think that would be the end of the case and we all win. Unless I'm missing something, which I very well might be.

If Becerra lost in the district court, and didn't appeal, but it didn't have any statewide bearing, then he would have very little motivation to try to win at the district court level. He could just give in and say "ok fine, Orange County you can have your assault weapons, but the rest of CA can't". But I don't think it works that way - I believe a district court decision has bearing on everyone who is affected by the laws that were challenged.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-25-2017 at 10:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-25-2017, 10:36 AM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,564
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Why would it have to go to SCOTUS to do us any good? If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't a district court win that goes un-appealed pretty much be the end of the AW ban right then and there?
A district or CA court win would of course eliminate the California ban, but it is unlikely to occur and in any case would not provide direct relief to people in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey or Massachusetts, all of which have paid-up NRA members.

It would be nice to see an early win, but I suspect that's not the game NRA-ILA are playing here.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-25-2017, 11:04 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,674
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Why would it have to go to SCOTUS to do us any good? If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't a district court win that goes un-appealed pretty much be the end of the AW ban right then and there?
That's a good one. It would be even faster if the legislators decided to remove the current laws from the penal code...

Both possibilities are about equally likely.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-25-2017, 11:08 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,674
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
It would be nice to see an early win, but I suspect that's not the game NRA-ILA are playing here.
Certainly not the end-game.

These are designed to go to SCOTUS and any lower level win would allow the other side to control whether the lawsuit moves up to the next level. That's why the challenge has to be VERY comprehensive. It must be such that it's a total defeat for the state should lower courts side with us, thus ensuring the state doesn't stop the process in the unlikely case they are in position to do so.

There are two realistic obstacles from the political courts: (1) Infinite delay, the way D.C. dragged their feet for years, and (2) Calculated injunction that lets us win, but prevents the case from going up, the way Lisa Madigan stopped Moore in CA-7.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-25-2017, 11:21 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
That's a good one. It would be even faster if the legislators decided to remove the current laws from the penal code...

Both possibilities are about equally likely.
haha, yep. I was just saying from a strictly procedural standpoint, that would be true. But I agree, it's never going to happen. We'd be more likely to hear that Newsom has decided to switch to the republican party.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-25-2017, 11:22 AM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,564
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
These are designed to go to SCOTUS and any lower level win would allow the other side to control whether the lawsuit moves up to the next level.
On the other hand, remember Heller: it's hard to overestimate the arrogance and hubris of elected officials who have the entire state treasury at their disposal to fight the good fight. We would never have gotten the Heller decision if DC didn't insist on appealing their losses all the way to the top.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-25-2017, 11:41 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
On the other hand, remember Heller: it's hard to overestimate the arrogance and hubris of elected officials who have the entire state treasury at their disposal to fight the good fight. We would never have gotten the Heller decision if DC didn't insist on appealing their losses all the way to the top.
The district court actually dismissed the case, and our side appealed it. But on appeal, the DC circuit court did rule against DC, then DC petitioned for en banc, and lost again, and then they (stupidly, on their part) appealed again to SCOTUS, and as we all know, lost a 3rd time. They should have just cut their losses with the circuit court's ruling, but that's just not their M.O.

"Appeal until you can't appeal anymore, and then try to appeal it some more, until you win" is the way they tend to do things, no matter how minor the case.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-25-2017 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-25-2017, 11:57 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 880
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
the arrogance and hubris of elected officials
A perfect descriptor. I can't imagine for one second that they would let their pet legislation be quashed without going to the absolute top. I could envision them even directing the state's sympathetic LE admin heads to disregard any SCOTUS ruling, because "they know what's best for California " in a rage of protest backed by an equally arrogant media. Crazy?....Look at the hiring of Eric Holder, the advancement of sanctuary cities/states, outward defiance, etc.
This is going to be a long road I think, and I really hope that the lawsuits filed get us there eventually.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-25-2017, 12:00 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Why would it have to go to SCOTUS to do us any good? If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't a district court win that goes un-appealed pretty much be the end of the AW ban right then and there?
Since when has *any* lower court win on our side gone unappealed?


Quote:
Of course, it's wishful thinking that Becerra wouldn't appeal a loss. Of course he would. But in the rare event that he didn't, I think that would be the end of the case and we all win. Unless I'm missing something, which I very well might be.
Nope, you're not missing anything -- a district court win here would have statewide effect if it went unappealed. But what we're doing here is making predictions. Wishful thinking (unfortunately) makes for very poor predictions.
__________________
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
  #36  
Old 04-25-2017, 12:06 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
A perfect descriptor. I can't imagine for one second that they would let their pet legislation be quashed without going to the absolute top. I could envision them even directing the state's sympathetic LE admin heads to disregard any SCOTUS ruling, because "they know what's best for California " in a rage of protest backed by an equally arrogant media. Crazy?....Look at the hiring of Eric Holder, the advancement of sanctuary cities/states, outward defiance, etc.
This is going to be a long road I think, and I really hope that the lawsuits filed get us there eventually.
I'm optimistic. I, too, don't think this is going to be something that happens quickly, but it's the only way anyone is going to make a big difference. A ruling in our favor on this case would effectively make any law that arbitrarily bans 'arms in common use' unconstitutional.

The effects of that would be absolutely massive. It would not only nullify the arbitrary weapons bans currently on the books, but prevent new ones from being added. It's effects could even be as far-reaching as the handgun roster, suppressors, and magazines, even though those items aren't specifically called out in the suit.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-25-2017 at 12:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-25-2017, 2:46 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,597
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Certainly not the end-game.

These are designed to go to SCOTUS and any lower level win would allow the other side to control whether the lawsuit moves up to the next level. That's why the challenge has to be VERY comprehensive. It must be such that it's a total defeat for the state should lower courts side with us, thus ensuring the state doesn't stop the process in the unlikely case they are in position to do so.

There are two realistic obstacles from the political courts: (1) Infinite delay, the way D.C. dragged their feet for years, and (2) Calculated injunction that lets us win, but prevents the case from going up, the way Lisa Madigan stopped Moore in CA-7.
Which is why these types of cases will have a slim chance of winning, unless SCOTUS is blatantly pro 2a. The courts won't want to tear down long standing gun laws.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-25-2017, 3:04 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
The courts won't want to tear down long standing gun laws.
The bill of rights is over 225 years old, doesn't get much more long-standing than that. The AWCA is just a baby by comparison, at 28 years old.

Heck, Justice Reinhardt had been on the bench for almost a decade already when that law passed, and he's still there.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-25-2017 at 3:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-25-2017, 3:05 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,597
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Unless the laws are over 225 years old... in which case they're fair game.
Taking away rights is what governments do best. Giving them back isn't one of their favorite things to do.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-25-2017, 5:03 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,674
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Taking away rights is what governments do best. Giving them back isn't one of their favorite things to do.
That's where the courts kick in.

Since we've reached the point of political courts, might as well have the current administration pack them with "living constitution," but full right leaning types. You know, the guys who can invent any gun right out of thin air the way leftist judges invent rights that suit their agenda.

We've seen with "nuclear option" that payback is a b!#@. Time to play the game in reverse and the court composition is more than favorable at the moment.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
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 1:21 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.