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 07-17-2021, 9:48 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
Procedural? The order on 3/17 seems more informative:

ORDER: (1) Granting 33 Motion to Joint Motion Amend Scheduling Order; and (2) Issuing Scheduling Order. Final Pretrial Conference reset for 7/19/2021 10:30 AM before Judge Roger T. Benitez. Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law now due by 6/21/2021. Proposed Pretrial Order now due by 7/12/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 3/17/2021. (mme) (Entered: 03/17/2021)
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 07-18-2021, 5:22 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,255
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Pacer Monitor
Quote:
Monday, June 14, 2021
38

3 pgs order Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Tue 06/15 8:16 AM
ORDER: (1) granting 37 Joint Motion to amend Scheduling Order; (2) Issuing Amended Scheduling Order. Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law due by 9/20/2021. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/12/2021. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/18/2021 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 6/14/2021. (jpp)
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-19-2021, 4:43 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Here's the Courtlistener link since it crowdsources pdfs from those who use the RECAP extension when downloading from PACER.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc


Uploaded Order:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...44922.38.0.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-22-2021, 1:16 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 393
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 9/22/2021.

Quote:
Since 1917, the State of California has made it a crime for the average citizen to possess a weapon known as a billy. Like S&H Green Stamps, over the years the billy’s popularity has come and gone, yet the billy law remains. But for the threat of violating the criminal statute, Plaintiffs would possess a billy or baton for self-defense. Plaintiffs challenge the law as an infringement on their federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In this case of first impression, both sides move for summary judgment. Because the 104-year-old state law qualifies as “longstanding,” it is a permissible restriction on a dangerous, but less-than-lethal, unusual weapon. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied and Defendants’ motion is granted.

Last edited by FirearmFino; 09-22-2021 at 2:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-22-2021, 1:21 PM
hitmissone hitmissone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 179
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So what does all this mean?????? Most of the links won't open
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-22-2021, 1:21 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,782
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Disappointed by Benitez letting the “longstanding” garbage stand.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-22-2021, 1:32 PM
hitmissone hitmissone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 179
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Guess the ruling not a good one???
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-22-2021, 3:29 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

St. Benitez is due for a defrocking, and needs to be sent back to grammar school for a remedial math class.

Quote:
precedent precluding further analysis, because the 104-year-old regulation is longstanding, it is therefore beyond the sweep of the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment is denied and Defendants’ cross motion for summary
judgment is granted.
Dated September 22, 2021.
The SECOND AMENDMENT is the precedent, and since it was ratified in 1791.

It's 230 yrs far surpasses the 104 yr INFRINGEMENT he just allowed to stand.

Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-22-2021, 5:16 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,255
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It will help if folks read the entire ruling before commenting. I have.

This isn’t about remedial math.

It’s about long-standing court precedence and history.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-22-2021, 6:44 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
It will help if folks read the entire ruling before commenting. I have.

This isn’t about remedial math.

It’s about long-standing court precedence and history.
Yeah it is. Which is just another COURT CREATED lameass justification for allowing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

TO BE INFRINGED.

example ..............

Judge to defendant in wife beating case.

judge ... Sir you are charged with spousal abuse for hitting your wife.

defndant .... But your honor, with all due respect, I've been hitting that beotch for decades.

judge ... Well Sir, I was unaware of that fact. In light of an established "long standing precedence". YOU ARE FREE TO GO. ALL CHARGES IN THIS MATTER ARE DISMISSED!

Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 09-22-2021, 10:04 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Because the 104-year-old state law qualifies as “longstanding,” it is a permissible restriction on a dangerous, but less-than-lethal, unusual weapon.
Like machine guns: they weren’t “unusual” until they had been banned by the government.

Oh well, on to appeals court!
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 09-23-2021 at 4:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-22-2021, 10:25 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,110
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Of course, whether this Court agrees or not, it is bound to follow binding precedent. So, in this case, if the regulation on the possession of a billy is a historically-approved prohibition, then it is deemed beyond the ambit of the Second Amendment and it will be upheld without further inquiry, as required. See Young, 992 F.3d at 783.
At page 12 of the pdf

Generally, 'we' want inferior courts, like the 9th, to follow what 'we' think is SCOTUS precedent in Heller. But inferior Federal courts must follow precedent in their Circuit. One might approach the 9th and argue to reverse that precedent, but an inferior court cannot do that.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"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."

- Marcus Aurelius
Consider Samizdat; consider some reading material, such as this and that.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.




Last edited by Librarian; 09-22-2021 at 10:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-23-2021, 8:58 AM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,286
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

How is a collapsible baton an unusual weapon when basically every LEO carries one?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-23-2021, 9:38 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 393
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Notice of appeal
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-23-2021, 8:41 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,426
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Not a lawyer, but a loss due to a "longstanding" argument is one of the better ways to get to an appeal, since it indicates that the challenge itself has no substantive flaws.

I could be totally wrong on this, of course.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-24-2021, 5:53 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,255
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Yeah it is. Which is just another COURT CREATED lameass justification for allowing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

TO BE INFRINGED.

example ..............

Judge to defendant in wife beating case.

judge ... Sir you are charged with spousal abuse for hitting your wife.

defndant .... But your honor, with all due respect, I've been hitting that beotch for decades.

judge ... Well Sir, I was unaware of that fact. In light of an established "long standing precedence". YOU ARE FREE TO GO. ALL CHARGES IN THIS MATTER ARE DISMISSED!

Long-standing legal precedent of Western law against spousal abuse and generally, battery, precludes that result.

Of more concern is your basic premise that a husband has an inalienable, God-given Right to physically beat his wife, and that Right shall not be infringed.

Which part of the Constitution contains that?
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-24-2021, 7:05 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,255
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Some highlights from the Ruling:

Long-Standing Regulation:
Pg 26, line 6….
Quote:
…as Heller II observed, “longstanding” “necessarily means it has long been accepted by the public . . . [and is] not likely to burden a constitutional right.” 670 F.3d at 1253. The weapon known as a billy has been the subject of regulation in at least twenty states -- beginning in the 1800’s and continuing to the present. The historical prevalence of nationwide restrictions is sufficient to conclude that government regulation of a billy has long been accepted by the public.54 Pena v. Lindley, 898 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2018), said, “‘longstanding, accepted regulations’ may come from the early- twentieth century and need not trace their roots back to the Founding, so long as their ‘historical prevalence and significance is properly developed in the record.” Id. at 1003- 04.55 California Penal Code § 22210’s prohibition on possessing an “instrument or weapon commonly known as a billy” passes this test.

Plaintiffs argue that the historical prevalence raises merely a rebuttable presumption of constitutionality and that they have rebutted the presumption.56

The assertion is unsupported by anything more than a scintilla of evidence. But it does not matter under Ninth Circuit precedent. As noted earlier, once an arms regulation qualifies as longstanding, it is upheld without further inquiry. Young, 992 F.3d at 783. Therefore, as there are no genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
Lawful Purpose:
Page 27, line 6:
Quote:
B. StepTwo–NotCommonlyOwnedforLawfulPurposes
If § 22210 was not a longstanding regulation, the Second Amendment analysis would move to step two. Young, 992 F.3d at 784. As applied to the California prohibition here, Heller would ask: is the weapon prohibited by § 22210 commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes? According to interpretations by California state courts, interpretations which federal courts must respect, the arms prohibited by § 22210 are not commonly owned for lawful purposes.
Used for Home Defense:
Page 28, line 3…
Quote:
Heller held that the core of the Second Amendment right is to preserve the right of law-abiding citizens to defend hearth and home. 554 U.S. at 635; see also Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home.”). “As we put it, self-defense [is] ‘the central component of the right itself.’” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 787. Were there a preponderance of evidence demonstrating that a policeman’s billy is commonly owned by law abiding citizens for defense of the home, a (newly enacted – not longstanding) statute like § 22210 would run headlong into the Heller test and the statute would be struck down. Cf., Bauer, 858 F.3d at 1222 (quoting Silvester, 843 F.3d at 821) (“A law that imposes such a severe restriction on the fundamental right of self-defense of the home that it amounts to a destruction of the Second Amendment right is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.”). That is not the case here. 89 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home.”). “As we put it, self-defense [is] ‘the central component of the right itself.’” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 787. Were there a preponderance of evidence demonstrating that a policeman’s billy is commonly owned by law abiding citizens for defense of the home, a (newly enacted – not longstanding) statute like § 22210 would run headlong into the Heller test and the statute would be struck down. Cf., Bauer, 858 F.3d at 1222 (quoting Silvester, 843 F.3d at 821) (“A law that imposes such a severe restriction on the fundamental right of self-defense of the home that it amounts to a destruction of the Second Amendment right is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.”). That is not the case here.
Invitations to Appeal?
Page 12, line 7…
Quote:
2. California Penal Code § 22210 is a 104-Year-Old Longstanding Regulation

One court recently observed that for the courts called upon to define the boundaries of the Second Amendment, “uncharted frontiers remain.” Drummond v. Robinson Township, __ F.4th __, 2021 WL3627106 *1 (3rd Cir. August 17, 2021). This case about whether a prohibition on billy possession qualifies as “longstanding” lies in an area where maps are yet to be drawn. Holloway v. Att’y Gen. United States, 948 F.3d 164, 181 (3d Cir. 2020) (Fisher, CJ., dissenting) (“[N]either courts nor scholars have agreed on the precise contours of this category -- and in particular how ‘longstanding’ a regulation must be.”).

Treading lightly and cutting a first path, given our Circuit’s precedent, this Court holds that the California billy prohibition is a historically approved regulation.
Page 14, line 9…
Quote:
In trying to “get the history right,” courts rely on the parties to direct the focus to the principal historical sources and appropriate precedents. Young, 992 F.3d at 785-86. In this case, the parties might have been more helpful. Digging into history is the work of historians rather than judges. Consequently, like the court said in Young, “this is a legal opinion, not a dissertation, so we are likely to fall short in some way.” Id.
Page 10, Line 6…
Quote:
This Court does not read the Second Amendment or Heller to require stopping a constitutional inquiry without further analysis. A presumptively lawful firearm restriction may, upon further analysis, actually be at odds with the Second Amendment.

Why should a longstanding regulation be kept permanently beyond the reach of constitutional review? If judges accept Young’s invitation to uphold firearm restrictions without further analysis, a longstanding firearm restriction may be left stuck in the past, only because it has not been challenged before the present. Indeed, a restriction may not have been challenged in the past because, prior to Heller’s decision in 2008, it was said that an individual lacked Article III standing to assert an individual Second Amendment right.11

Prior to 2008, most judicial thinking about the Second Amendment was incorrect. Lower court opinions did not acknowledge that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to own firearms, or that the right applied against the states. See e.g., United States v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557, 565–66 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]his court has concluded that ‘the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.’”) (citation omitted).12 Other jurists have questioned the notion of a Second Amendment carve-out for longstanding restrictions and presumptively lawful regulations. See Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco & Explosives, 5 F.4th 407, 418 (4th Cir. 2021), as amended (July 15, 2021) (“We do not, however, read the word ‘longstanding’ in Heller as a standalone exception to the Second Amendment. . . . Heller’s historical, textual, and structural analysis counsels against creating a freestanding category of laws exempt from Second Amendment scrutiny based solely on how long similar laws have existed.”); see also Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 453–54 (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, C.J., dissenting) (“[D]oes ‘presumptively lawful’ mean that such regulations are presumed lawful unless a historical study shows otherwise? Does it mean that as-applied challenges are available? . . . Does the word ‘longstanding’ mean that prohibitions of recent vintage are suspect?”).
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 09-24-2021 at 7:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 09-24-2021, 3:56 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Long-standing legal precedent of Western law against spousal abuse and generally, battery, precludes that result.

Of more concern is your basic premise that a husband has an inalienable, God-given Right to physically beat his wife, and that Right shall not be infringed.

Which part of the Constitution contains that?
Just how does your obtuse interpretation of a sarcastic parody analogy. Become a "constitutional premise attributed to myself"?

Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 09-25-2021, 6:24 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,592
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Just how does your obtuse interpretation of a sarcastic parody analogy. Become a "constitutional premise attributed to myself"?

I think that he missed the obvious. As you say, a sarcastic parody analogy.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 09-26-2021, 5:11 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,826
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
It will help if folks read the entire ruling before commenting. I have.

This isn’t about remedial math.

It’s about long-standing court precedence and history.
The problem I have with this opinion is that we're not talking about public carry of billys, but a total ban on possession. "Longstanding" would need to have the context that other courts found (under an individual rights scope) that billys are not protected. Instead the opinion is based on just the law being in existence for an X number of years, and the state court opinions banning PUBLIC CARRY of these weapons. Taking this to the extreme would mean ANY law in existence for a certain period was automatically untouchable. That's just not how things are supposed to work.
Heller didn't say that "longstanding" laws are automatically protected anyway, just merely that they shouldn't be automatically struck down.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 10-04-2021, 11:30 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When (and where) do we find out the appeals docket for this case? Link?
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 10-15-2021, 10:09 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
When (and where) do we find out the appeals docket for this case? Link?
Bump
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 10-15-2021, 11:24 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,255
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
When (and where) do we find out the appeals docket for this case? Link?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...44922.43.0.pdf

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/ci...s/ca9/21-56039
Quote:
Filed: September 23, 2021

Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes.

The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Russell Fouts and Tan Miguel Tolentino Mediation Questionnaire due on 09/30/2021. Appellants Russell Fouts and Tan Miguel Tolentino opening brief due 11/23/2021. Appellee Rob Bonta answering brief due 12/23/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12237011] (RT) [Entered: 09/23/2021 10:59 AM]
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 10-15-2021 at 11:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 10-15-2021, 1:25 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks!
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-16-2021, 6:27 PM
Dano2467's Avatar
Dano2467 Dano2467 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Central Kali
Posts: 118
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So, the long slow process continues....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 11-17-2021, 12:37 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dano2467 View Post
So, the long slow process continues....
HEY IT'S ONLY

Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-18-2021, 8:16 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
HEY IT'S ONLY

Opening brief due Nov 23.
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-24-2021, 3:41 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Opening brief due Nov 23.
And here it is:

https://pdfhost.io/v/A3aNVxZ66_Fouts...OYFhUhpEqVZyWk

Forwarded to me by an interested party.

Last edited by pacrat; 11-24-2021 at 3:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11-24-2021, 3:43 PM
Spanky8601's Avatar
Spanky8601 Spanky8601 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northwest of LA
Posts: 1,877
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
And here it is:

https://pdfhost.io/v/A3aNVxZ66_Fouts...OYFhUhpEqVZyWk

Forwarded to me by an interested party.
I get a 404 error with that link.
__________________
May I always be the type of person my dog thinks I am
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-24-2021, 3:53 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,639
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanky8601 View Post
I get a 404 error with that link.
Try again, I think I got the link fixed.

https://pdfhost.io/v/A3aNVxZ66_Fouts...OYFhUhpEqVZyWk

Last edited by pacrat; 11-24-2021 at 9:36 PM.. Reason: fixed link added here also
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 11-24-2021, 7:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
And here it is:

https://pdfhost.io/v/A3aNVxZ66_Fouts...OYFhUhpEqVZyWk

Forwarded to me by an interested party.
Thanks!

Answering brief due Dec 23.

__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 11-26-2021, 10:50 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 269
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Invitation to try harder...

Quote:
Page 14, line 9…
Quote:
In trying to “get the history right,” courts rely on the parties to direct the focus to the principal historical sources and appropriate precedents. Young, 992 F.3d at 785-86. In this case, the parties might have been more helpful. Digging into history is the work of historians rather than judges. Consequently, like the court said in Young, “this is a legal opinion, not a dissertation, so we are likely to fall short in some way.” Id.
One thing I will say about the amicus briefs in NYSRPA Is how effectively they documented all the historical discrimination that New York engaged in with its permit process. Tons of documentation. The pro-NY side seemed to rely exclusively on their "longstanding" nature of their process. And they never demonstrated that the "longstanding" process wasn't discriminatory.

There's a longstanding idea that carrying in public is reserved for the aristocracy. That's basically how NY's plan works today, with permits only for the politically favored and the wealthy. Plenty of longstanding practices are discriminatory in effect.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 11-27-2021, 9:49 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,426
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
Plenty of longstanding practices are discriminatory in effect.
This is why i really don't understand the basis for any "longstanding" defense.

The "woke" crowd, of all people, should be on board with the notion that the more "longstanding" something is, the *more* likely it is discriminatory.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 11-29-2021, 3:58 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 393
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Streamlined request by Appellee Rob Bonta to extend time to file the brief is approved. Streamlined requests allow for a 30 day extension of time to file the brief. Amended briefing schedule: Appellee Rob Bonta answering brief due 01/24/2022. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief.
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 7:45 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical