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
  #4481  
Old 05-17-2022, 7:45 AM
lastinline lastinline is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,774
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
The majority of subjects in CA prefer the logic-free laws.
QFT. And they also happily go along with nearly every aspect of their lives being programmed by Big Brother, controlled, regulated, licensed, permitted, approved, sanctioned, and endorsed, all the while they are part of the herd of stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #4482  
Old 05-17-2022, 9:04 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,941
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorSideburns View Post
Why doesn't an enterprising 2A lawyer use their exact argument against them in filing a new case alleging the ban on billy clubs is unconstitutional?
2 reasons:

1 - money; appeals are very expensive. Assuming for discussion that the suit would produce a 'desirable' result, are 'billy clubs' the issue that deserves the resources?

2 - since the stated intent is not 'billy clubs' but an analog to guns, the resource use might be sensible - but we already know logic is not in play here, why would you expect 'consistency'?
__________________
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
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.



Reply With Quote
  #4483  
Old 05-17-2022, 7:00 PM
MajorSideburns's Avatar
MajorSideburns MajorSideburns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 991
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
2 reasons:

1 - money; appeals are very expensive. Assuming for discussion that the suit would produce a 'desirable' result, are 'billy clubs' the issue that deserves the resources?

2 - since the stated intent is not 'billy clubs' but an analog to guns, the resource use might be sensible - but we already know logic is not in play here, why would you expect 'consistency'?
My thinking would be not necessarily that billy clubs are the issue worth dying over, but that it could further help the Duncan case by creating a second front, so to speak, forcing the state to back itself in a corner. Could it force them to argue in double speak, which could be quoted for use in Duncan and used against them? How would the court view the merit of their arguments if in one case the state is arguing weapons are not protected by the second amendment because they were not in existence or common use at the time, while at the same time arguing in another case that weapons which were not only in common use but completely ubiquitous with a ton of historically documented use at the time are not protected under the second amendment?
__________________
If you are not familiar with the below sites, I encourage you to check them out and use them for cash back and great deals on ammo from Cabela's and such. Check the deals forum here on calguns and you will see a lot of us using these now. If you are kind enough to sign up through my below referral links, we both get instant bonus rewards. Thanks!

http://activejunky.com/invite/186564
http://www.swagbucks.com/p/register?rb=32948177

Last edited by MajorSideburns; 05-17-2022 at 7:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4484  
Old 06-01-2022, 2:40 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,272
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
May 10 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/26/2022.
It's possible this is held pending Bruen. It's been about a week, and no new entries.

EDIT: Almost a month now.

Last edited by abinsinia; 06-21-2022 at 12:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4485  
Old 06-21-2022, 3:28 PM
johnireland johnireland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 262
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Anybody else get the feeling that nothing is going to change? No matter what SCOTUS says or does, liberal states will ignore their rulings and continue to violate the law. Then someone else has to bring a very expensive legal action that will take ten or more years to get to the SCOTUS...and we are right back where we started. Look at how the left is behaving over Roe v Wade. This is what we must do in defense of the 2nd...and the rest of the Constitution. Time to stop making all the lawyers rich while getting no results. Time to take our position to the streets...mass demonstrations...parades outside the homes of liberals...send paid protesters to take over liberal cities. This is how the left wins. This is how we must fight back. How much money have we spent in the last 30 years playing the lawyers games...and what have we got to show for it?
Reply With Quote
  #4486  
Old 06-21-2022, 3:34 PM
bigdaddyz1776's Avatar
bigdaddyz1776 bigdaddyz1776 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: California
Posts: 163
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnireland View Post
Anybody else get the feeling that nothing is going to change? No matter what SCOTUS says or does, liberal states will ignore their rulings and continue to violate the law. Then someone else has to bring a very expensive legal action that will take ten or more years to get to the SCOTUS...and we are right back where we started. Look at how the left is behaving over Roe v Wade. This is what we must do in defense of the 2nd...and the rest of the Constitution. Time to stop making all the lawyers rich while getting no results. Time to take our position to the streets...mass demonstrations...parades outside the homes of liberals...send paid protesters to take over liberal cities. This is how the left wins. This is how we must fight back. How much money have we spent in the last 30 years playing the lawyers games...and what have we got to show for it?
Have red counties disobey blue state governments and start voting more in local and state political positions.

Like probably some conservative DA who doesn't prosecute AWBs or something of that sort if liberals are fine with Soros DAs.

And start to spread the word that WaPo and NYTimes are propaganda rags for the rich liberal elite and not some sort of nationwide paper of record.

Realize that Trump or any future Republican president, are not Jesus but mortal men, and folks have to take steps to save themselves rather than rely on one person or one party even.

Hold political leaders accountable.

Though the biggest issue, how to stop the indoctrination of young women in high schools and universities and on social media is probably the biggest hurdle.

I remember Greg Kelly on Newsmax mentioning that there were a lot of young women involved in those BLM Summer of Love 2020 riots.
Reply With Quote
  #4487  
Old 06-21-2022, 7:55 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,464
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
It's possible this is held pending Bruen. It's been about a week, and no new entries.

EDIT: Almost a month now.
NYSR&PA will probably be the last opinion released this term.
Reply With Quote
  #4488  
Old 06-21-2022, 8:27 PM
Batman's Avatar
Batman Batman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mission Viejo (OC)
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 173 / 100%
Default

I guess it's only a one-way street. Remember that Kentucky official who wouldn't certify marriage certificates for gays? That lasted what.... a week?

The REAL challenge would be if the state decided "Nope... we don't have to do what the Feds ask. What are you going to do about it?"

Of course, the Feds can withhold funds, but the reality is that unless the Feds are willing to send in troops to enforce it, there's not much else they can do.
Reply With Quote
  #4489  
Old 06-22-2022, 6:17 AM
Go Navy's Avatar
Go Navy Go Navy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,046
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I don't think 2A proponents should adopt the obscene, uncivil, even illegal tactics of the left. The media would have you believe that those tactics work, but I don't think that's true in most cases.

While some states will probably ignore the upcoming NY State case decision, I think most Federal Appellate courts will uphold it. What about the 9th Circus, you ask? Who knows. Trump was able to change the composition of that mess, somewhat.

Just read that SCOTUS is going to hand down more decisions this Thursday, 23 June.
__________________
USN Veteran, Gun Owners of Calif. Member, NRA Life Member

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. ” (Ronald Reagan, 1964)
Reply With Quote
  #4490  
Old 06-22-2022, 7:09 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,870
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Why shouldn’t we adopt the same tactics the left has adopted? If you haven’t noticed, they are far more effective at getting what they want. Taking the moral high ground will only result in the 2A being further infringed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4491  
Old 06-22-2022, 8:56 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,381
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Navy View Post
I don't think 2A proponents should adopt the obscene, uncivil, even illegal tactics of the left. The media would have you believe that those tactics work, but I don't think that's true in most cases.

While some states will probably ignore the upcoming NY State case decision, I think most Federal Appellate courts will uphold it. What about the 9th Circus, you ask? Who knows. Trump was able to change the composition of that mess, somewhat.

Just read that SCOTUS is going to hand down more decisions this Thursday, 23 June.
and they just added Friday 06/24.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4492  
Old 06-22-2022, 5:16 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
and they just added Friday 06/24.
One day more...
Reply With Quote
  #4493  
Old 06-22-2022, 9:55 PM
johnireland johnireland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 262
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I will be truly amazed if the SCOTUS does more than avoid making any serious 2A decision...and just makes some limited lip service to it. As for RvWade...I'll believe it when I see it. Seems that Roberts is pulling out all the stops to try and flip one of the conservative justices to support Roe. As of today...as of this hour...the entire court system in the US is a farce.
Reply With Quote
  #4494  
Old 06-22-2022, 10:21 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default They're having a moment...

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnireland View Post
I will be truly amazed if the SCOTUS does more than avoid making any serious 2A decision...and just makes some limited lip service to it.

They recognize they have a moment to do something. That something is going to be making the connection that personal firearms ownership and carry is how marginalized people groups defend against hate crimes. That will be an innovation compared to 150 years ago, when the Court was against those groups carrying firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #4495  
Old 06-23-2022, 2:29 AM
Pranqster Pranqster is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnireland View Post
I will be truly amazed if the SCOTUS does more than avoid making any serious 2A decision...and just makes some limited lip service to it. As for RvWade...I'll believe it when I see it. Seems that Roberts is pulling out all the stops to try and flip one of the conservative justices to support Roe. As of today...as of this hour...the entire court system in the US is a farce.
It may not be perfect, but I'd take our judicial system over any other in the world. Have some perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #4496  
Old 06-23-2022, 2:31 AM
Pranqster Pranqster is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
They recognize they have a moment to do something. That something is going to be making the connection that personal firearms ownership and carry is how marginalized people groups defend against hate crimes. That will be an innovation compared to 150 years ago, when the Court was against those groups carrying firearms.
I don't think they'd say it, even though it is 100% true
Reply With Quote
  #4497  
Old 06-23-2022, 6:39 AM
Echidin Echidin is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SBC
Posts: 3,042
iTrader: 81 / 100%
Default

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...ndment-ruling/

Looks like we have a ruling
Reply With Quote
  #4498  
Old 06-23-2022, 7:11 AM
Maxa1 Maxa1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's the text:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-843_7j80.pdf

Importantly, the Supremes struck down New York's two-step analysis, which the 9th Circuit used to uphold Duncan v. Becerra.

So, what's the next step with Duncan and when should we expect a ruling?

Ditto with the case about the California hand gun roster?
Reply With Quote
  #4499  
Old 06-23-2022, 7:54 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,870
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Now that Bruen was decided, Duncan can start moving again, right?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4500  
Old 06-23-2022, 8:08 AM
sdsu sdsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 232
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

yes!
Reply With Quote
  #4501  
Old 06-23-2022, 8:23 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does this mean we should expect SCOTUS to accept the case or remand the case?
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #4502  
Old 06-23-2022, 8:37 AM
Galli1565 Galli1565 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 789
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Default

Excellent news
__________________
Certified Colt 1911 Armorer // Certified Glock Armorer // Certified M&P Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #4503  
Old 06-23-2022, 9:47 AM
cyphr02's Avatar
cyphr02 cyphr02 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 413
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
Does this mean we should expect SCOTUS to accept the case or remand the case?
hopefully remand it as the intermediate scum ruling it is?
Reply With Quote
  #4504  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:46 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 8,215
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
Does this mean we should expect SCOTUS to accept the case or remand the case?
Uhh, they gotta accept the case before they can remand it.

Please check out the process commonly known as "GVR" - Grant, Vacate, and Remand. I think that may be what you're referring to.

In a GVR, the Court accepts the case, but rather than author a whole new opinion, the court directs the lower court to handle the case according to other case(s) cited in their order.

It's a legal way of saying "Ditto", or "Do it the way we told the other guy to do it."
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #4505  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:42 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Uhh, they gotta accept the case before they can remand it.

Please check out the process commonly known as "GVR" - Grant, Vacate, and Remand. I think that may be what you're referring to.

In a GVR, the Court accepts the case, but rather than author a whole new opinion, the court directs the lower court to handle the case according to other case(s) cited in their order.

It's a legal way of saying "Ditto", or "Do it the way we told the other guy to do it."
Yes. GVR is what I mean. IANAL. Looking forward to more celebrations on Monday!
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #4506  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:16 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 53,549
iTrader: 112 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
In a GVR, the Court accepts the case, but rather than author a whole new opinion, the court directs the lower court to handle the case according to other case(s) cited in their order.

It's a legal way of saying "Ditto", or "Do it the way we told the other guy to do it."
The 9th will just accept a GVR as a challenge to do the same thing with some different legal wording.

I would rather the USSC simply accepts Duncan and flat out opines that magazines are protected the same as firearms as that is a better win than a win in the 9th after a GVR since the USSC opinion covers all the districts while the 9th GVR only covers the 9th.

We can still dream right?
I don't think they can take that away from us.
Reply With Quote
  #4507  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:48 PM
HibikiR HibikiR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: LA County
Posts: 2,227
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

I'm all for SCOTUS taking the cases and steamrolling the anti-gun agenda nationwide.
Reply With Quote
  #4508  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:51 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 529
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default They did!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranqster View Post
I don't think they'd say it, even though it is 100% true
They didn't go into all modern hate crimes. But Thomas has a historical discussion around the right to keep and bear arms for newly freed slaves that starts on page 52.
Reply With Quote
  #4509  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:59 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,870
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
The 9th will just accept a GVR as a challenge to do the same thing with some different legal wording.

I would rather the USSC simply accepts Duncan and flat out opines that magazines are protected the same as firearms as that is a better win than a win in the 9th after a GVR since the USSC opinion covers all the districts while the 9th GVR only covers the 9th.

We can still dream right?
I don't think they can take that away from us.
I agree.

This ruling seems to set a pretty solid framework in place but they should still begin to flesh it out.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4510  
Old 06-23-2022, 1:01 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 8,215
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
The 9th will just accept a GVR as a challenge to do the same thing with some different legal wording.

I would rather the USSC simply accepts Duncan and flat out opines that magazines are protected the same as firearms as that is a better win than a win in the 9th after a GVR since the USSC opinion covers all the districts while the 9th GVR only covers the 9th.

We can still dream right?
I don't think they can take that away from us.
You're probably right as to the agenda of the Ninth Circuit. Its not as bad as it was, the Trump appointees have made a difference, but they're still in the minority.

The Supreme Court has played this game before with the Ninth, and can remand with very specific instructions that limit their "wiggle room." And the Ninth has played this game before, often with the language in their opinions "if the Supreme Court wishes...they'll have to say so more clearly" which invites those specific instructions.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #4511  
Old 06-23-2022, 1:14 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,870
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

If Duncan is GVR’d, does it go back to the full en banc panel or the initial 3 judge panel?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4512  
Old 06-23-2022, 4:14 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Let's look at the last opinion in Duncan from the En Banc.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VX7...ew?usp=sharing

Quote:
Reviewing de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs, Salisbury v. City of Santa Monica, 998 F.3d 852, 857 (9th Cir. 2021), we hold: (1) Under the Second Amendment, intermediate scrutiny applies, and section 32310 is a reasonable fit for the important government interest of reducing gun violence.
Try again...no 2-steps here.

Quote:
No one except trained law enforcement should be able to possess these dangerous ammunition magazines,” and the present law’s lack of a ban on possession constituted a “loophole.” Id. § 2(12). The law’s stated purpose is “[t]o make it illegal in California to possess the kinds of military-style ammunition magazines that enable mass killings like those at Sandy Hook Elementary School; a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; Columbine High School; and an office building at 101 California Street in San Francisco, California.” Id. § 3(8).
14th Amendment issue?


Quote:
Judge Bumatay’s dissent would jettison the two-step framework adopted by us and our sister circuits, in favor of a “text, history, and tradition” test. Dissent by J. Bumatay at 108. Plaintiffs have not sought this test, despite having filed supplemental briefs after we granted rehearing en banc, and Defendant has not had a chance to respond. The dissent nevertheless asks us to disrupt a decade of caselaw and to create a circuit split with ten of our sister circuits, not because of any recent development in the law, but because of the dissent’s preferred reading of the same Supreme Court cases that we have applied many times. We reject the dissent’s invitation. Our test is fully consistent with every other circuit court’s approach and, for the reasons that follow, we agree with those decisions that have thoroughly and persuasively rejected the dissent’s alternative approach to Second Amendment claims. E.g., NYSRPA, 804 F.3d at 257 n.74; Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1264–67.
Thomas basically said those 6 circuits are wrong and J. Bumatay was right.

Quote:
Moreover, Congress and some states have imposed firing-capacity restrictions for nearly a century. In 1932, Congress banned, in the District of Columbia, “any firearm which shoots automatically or semiautomatically more than twelve shots without reloading.” Around the same time, several states, including California, enacted bans on firearms that could fire automatically or semi-automatically more than 10, 12, 16, or 18 bullets. 1933 Cal. Stat. 1170, § 3. The state bans were later repealed, but the District of Columbia’s ban appears to have remained in place in some form continuously since 1932. We also take note of the more
19th century tradition is not far back enough. Try again.
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #4513  
Old 06-24-2022, 2:56 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,870
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So it has to go all the way back to the 3 judge panel?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4514  
Old 06-24-2022, 3:09 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
So it has to go all the way back to the 3 judge panel?
If I knew the answer, I would tell you. Maybe one of our knowledgeable lawyers member will chime in.
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #4515  
Old 06-24-2022, 4:48 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
So it has to go all the way back to the 3 judge panel?
I believe the Supreme Court would remand it to “the ninth circuit for further consideration in light of Bruen” and not be specific.

While further consideration wouldn’t change the outcome of the three judge panel, it might change the argument and/or the desire to take it en banc.
Reply With Quote
  #4516  
Old 06-25-2022, 1:31 PM
johnireland johnireland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 262
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Never been happier in my life to be wrong. Does this do anything to the California Roster?
Reply With Quote
  #4517  
Old 06-25-2022, 1:34 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 53,549
iTrader: 112 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnireland View Post
Does this do anything to the California Roster?
No.
That's a different case which will have a much better chance of sucess after integrating Bruen.
__________________
Randall Rausch

AR work: www.ar15barrels.com
Bolt actions: www.700barrels.com
Foreign Semi Autos: www.akbarrels.com
Barrel, sight and trigger work on most pistols and shotguns.
Most work performed while-you-wait, evening and saturday appointments available.
Reply With Quote
  #4518  
Old 06-25-2022, 5:03 PM
Flight4 Flight4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
Let's look at the last opinion in Duncan from the En Banc.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VX7...ew?usp=sharing


Try again...no 2-steps here.

14th Amendment issue?

Thomas basically said those 6 circuits are wrong and J. Bumatay was right.

19th century tradition is not far back enough. Try again.
I find it very interesting when considering the Bruen clarity that 2 steps is one step too many, in Duncan v. Bonta the important "Step 1" has already been determined at every level of review. (9th en banc "assumed without deciding.")
“any law that comes close to categorically
banning the possession of arms that are commonly
used for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on
the Second Amendment,”

Surveying the historical record,
the (9th 3 member) panel found no evidence that magazine capacity
restrictions have any historical pedigree. While
“firearms capable of holding more than ten rounds of
ammunition have been available in the United States
for well over two centuries,” restrictions on such
magazines have been rare, relatively recent, and
short-lived: “Only during Prohibition did a handful of
state legislatures enact capacity restrictions,”
They cornered themselves with the 2 step approach, and by conceding step 1 and focusing on step 2. Therefore, IMO it is already clear and written into the record everything that shows the magazine law is unconstitutional. Seems like it should be just a formality for that law to go away.

IANAL, and quotes come from here
Reply With Quote
  #4519  
Old 06-25-2022, 5:19 PM
Bolt_Action Bolt_Action is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 529
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flight4 View Post
I find it very interesting when considering the Bruen clarity that 2 steps is one step too many, in Duncan v. Bonta the important "Step 1" has already been determined at every level of review. (9th en banc "assumed without deciding.")
“any law that comes close to categorically
banning the possession of arms that are commonly
used for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on
the Second Amendment,”

Surveying the historical record,
the (9th 3 member) panel found no evidence that magazine capacity
restrictions have any historical pedigree. While
“firearms capable of holding more than ten rounds of
ammunition have been available in the United States
for well over two centuries,” restrictions on such
magazines have been rare, relatively recent, and
short-lived: “Only during Prohibition did a handful of
state legislatures enact capacity restrictions,”
They cornered themselves with the 2 step approach, and by conceding step 1 and focusing on step 2. Therefore, IMO it is already clear and written into the record everything that shows the magazine law is unconstitutional. Seems like it should be just a formality for that law to go away.

IANAL, and quotes come from here
I don’t think most of you get it. The 9th circuit doesn’t care one wit about what the law says or what SCOTUS says. They don’t care if an antigun law is blatantly unconstitutional. They’ve already reached their conclusion, and nothing is going to change their mind. The ONLY way we are going to win on any 2A issue in the 9th’s jurisdiction will be to lose, petition to SCOTUS, and win there. That’s the only way.
Reply With Quote
  #4520  
Old 06-25-2022, 5:39 PM
exnds exnds is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Orange County
Posts: 91
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

SCOTUS is well aware of all the games the 9th likes to play and if they GVR Duncan/ANJRPC the outcome will be the same, and will end up right back in their lap a few years down the road. Knowing this and since the magazine cases are already up for consideration is there a decent chance they will simply take the cases and rule once and for all? Seems like it's the expeditious thing to do rather than GVR and waste more court time.
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 7:25 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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