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
  #201  
Old 09-07-2022, 12:04 PM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: OC
Posts: 6,393
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vino68 View Post
Clearly a millennial or gen z.
Don’t lump him in with us.
__________________
Freedom isn't free...



iTrader
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 09-07-2022, 12:13 PM
ivanimal's Avatar
ivanimal ivanimal is offline
Janitors assistant
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: East Bay
Posts: 14,342
iTrader: 195 / 100%
Default

Carry on
__________________
"I would kill for a Nobel peace prize." Steven Wright"
Board Member CGSSA Donate now!
NRA lifetime member
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 09-07-2022, 12:38 PM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 345
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So far it seems every single 2A case post-Bruen is being sent back to the lower courts. Delay and pray is about all Bonta has left.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 09-07-2022, 12:39 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman View Post
change the court to eliminate the 2nd
Technically, this isn't what the courts will be doing, exactly, but in spirit, yes.
__________________
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
  #205  
Old 09-07-2022, 1:35 PM
My600's Avatar
My600 My600 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Bay Area (Moved to Pflugerville, TX)
Posts: 184
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Nothing going to overturn soon or even never will. Enjoy what you have, if you're not happy with it move to a free state or stick around and fight
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 09-07-2022, 2:16 PM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,423
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default



And good riddance.

---
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 09-07-2022, 2:29 PM
Bullets&Whitewalls Bullets&Whitewalls is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Woodland Ca
Posts: 2,329
iTrader: 80 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned Ryerson View Post
I'm glad to see that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is at least acknowledging that there is a new judicial standard that must now be applied in evaluating 2nd Amendment cases. This will work to our advantage in all future cases.
I disagree, If you read that whole blurb they put out it also goes with how they should be looking at what is going on today and not in history, Which if you ask me will work against us if I read it right.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 09-07-2022, 2:40 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 448
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

"The district court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is VACATED"

I read that as an open invitation for another shot at a PI?
__________________
06/29/21 App Received
07/29/21 Check Cashed
04/22/22 Livescan CA/FBI Cleared
05/17/22 Interview
07/26/22 Livescan Firearms Cleared
08/08/22 Proceed to Training Email
12/30/22 Training Sent
01/02/23 Training Received
03/17/23 Call for Pick Up
04/20/23 Pick Up Date
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 09-07-2022, 2:46 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,491
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiuJitsu View Post
...Delay and pray is about all Bonta has left.
No, no. You clearly don't savvy the messaging.

Decision to block California ban on under-21 rifle sales vacated

Quote:
...Wednesday's order is a temporary victory for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who defended the ban...
See? Temporary (define 'temporary') or not, it's... VICTORY... for them. We lose. You must understand.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 09-07-2022, 3:03 PM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 345
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"Temporary victory". Love it. Just delay some civil rights until they ultimately lose. That's a "victory".
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 09-07-2022, 3:23 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

The Hunting license requirement was unconstitutional! It’s good that it got sent back to district court to fix this issue. That’s not something appeals would fix.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 09-07-2022, 3:36 PM
cyphr02's Avatar
cyphr02 cyphr02 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 477
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusrn View Post
Yeah, I don't think it's cricket to give machine guns to<21 year olds in military and police and not let civilian militia 18-20s have same access. It's bogus and untenable and should be unenforceable. Would young Bill Ares, Ted Nugent, or Barry Sotero stand for this buggery?
You saying that the standard of ownership should be having a PT stud scream in your face for 2-3 months to see if you're going to crack under pressure or have incel tendencies; then be forced to get orders to check out your arms from an armorer, and then check them back in once those orders have expired? If not, you're making a straw man argument.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 09-07-2022, 3:44 PM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: OC
Posts: 6,393
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Paywall.

Can you quote some of the main points?
__________________
Freedom isn't free...



iTrader
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 09-07-2022, 4:05 PM
GetMeCoffee's Avatar
GetMeCoffee GetMeCoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Deleted - post transferred from a dupe thread and is irrelevant to this one.
__________________

NRA Patriot Life Member, Benefactor
CRPA: Life Member
FPC: Member

It's 2025. Mickey Mouse is in the public domain and Goofy has left the White House.

Last edited by GetMeCoffee; 09-07-2022 at 6:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 09-07-2022, 4:09 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 14,176
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee View Post
This is from May 2022. Isn't this just the Jones v. Bonta case? https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1543462
May 11 to be exact.
__________________
True wealth is time. Time to enjoy life.

Life's journey is not to arrive safely in a well preserved body, but rather to slide in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "holy schit...what a ride"!!

Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain

A man's soul can be judged by the way he treats his dog. Charles Doran
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 09-07-2022, 4:13 PM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,457
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Let the dominoes fall.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 09-07-2022, 4:17 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 19,434
iTrader: 109 / 100%
Default

I am going to up the price on ones I have for sale.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 09-07-2022, 4:18 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Just delete this
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 09-07-2022, 4:19 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

The PI was vacated and sent back to district court.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 09-07-2022, 4:30 PM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 21,541
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

So, no for an en banc session that can be pushed back down to the lower court to rethink their view. The case will be re-argued and sent back up, two years later, only to be sent back down and sent back…
__________________
Sorry, not sorry.
🎺

Dear autocorrect, I'm really getting tired of your shirt!
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 09-07-2022, 4:39 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
May 11 to be exact.

As of TODAY, the 5-11-22 decision is GONE.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...3e8efb1701aa72


Quote:
A federal appeals court on Wednesday set aside its decision that California’s ban on selling semiautomatic weapons to adults under 21 was unconstitutional, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that changed how judges must evaluate firearms laws.

Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 09-07-2022, 4:39 PM
Fastattack's Avatar
Fastattack Fastattack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North Central Arizona (formerly So Cal)
Posts: 1,503
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Sounds like California government just got B***H slapped.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 09-07-2022, 4:43 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofWWIIDI View Post
So, no for an en banc session that can be pushed back down to the lower court to rethink their view. The case will be re-argued and sent back up, two years later, only to be sent back down and sent back…
No, it may have gotten sent back to get rid of the Hunting License requirement which is not in line with NYSSA v Bruen
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 09-07-2022, 5:21 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
No, it may have gotten sent back to get rid of the Hunting License requirement which is not in line with NYSSA v Bruen
That's not why .. Why do 18-20 year old have the suffer this law any longer? They sent it back to make it start up again and subject people to these laws again.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 09-07-2022, 5:38 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
That's not why .. Why do 18-20 year old have the suffer this law any longer? They sent it back to make it start up again and subject people to these laws again.
We won on appeals. The Hunting license requirement is unconstitutional. Do you want to make these people go through hunters Ed and pay $52 a year to buy a long gun? Take the partial win and then file another suit to get rid of the hunting license requirements?

It’s the court system. There is no instant gratification in court. FPC can now ask for PI all the way to SCOTUS.

Last edited by taperxz; 09-07-2022 at 5:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 09-07-2022, 6:00 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
We won on appeals. The Hunting license requirement is unconstitutional. Do you want to make these people go through hunters Ed and pay $52 a year to buy a long gun? Take the partial win and then file another suit to get rid of the hunting license requirements?

It’s the court system. There is no instant gratification in court. FPC can now ask for PI all the way to SCOTUS.
I don't think they should be subject to any of it, but the en banc court did not send it back to a corrupt district court to remove the hunting license part.

Maybe you want the hunting license gone also, but that's not why this is happening.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 09-07-2022, 6:09 PM
p7m8jg's Avatar
p7m8jg p7m8jg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Almost heaven, West Virginia
Posts: 1,914
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofWWIIDI View Post
So, no for an en banc session that can be pushed back down to the lower court to rethink their view. The case will be re-argued and sent back up, two years later, only to be sent back down and sent back…

I see what you did there!
Oliver Platt as Paul Bunyan in "Tall Tale" 1995.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 09-07-2022, 6:26 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I don't think they should be subject to any of it, but the en banc court did not send it back to a corrupt district court to remove the hunting license part.

Maybe you want the hunting license gone also, but that's not why this is happening.
Please show me where this was En Banc. This ruling was from the appeals panel.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 09-07-2022, 6:27 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Please show me where this was En Banc. This ruling was from the appeals panel.
That's how it works, the appeals court made a decision , and the only way to wipe that decision is en banc. They requested en banc to wipe the appeals court case to send it back to the district court.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 09-07-2022, 6:30 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
That's how it works, the appeals court made a decision , and the only way to wipe that decision is en banc. They requested en banc to wipe the appeals court case to send it back to the district court.
Nope, read the article.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 09-07-2022, 6:32 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Nope, read the article.
That article that's linked someplace, but your not sure where right ?
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 09-07-2022, 6:34 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Try scrolling up ?
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 09-07-2022, 6:37 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Hmm, so panel rehearing en banc, I wonder what that could mean.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 09-07-2022, 6:45 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Hmm, so panel rehearing en banc, I wonder what that could mean.
Instead of an En Banc, the 3 judge panel sent it back to district court. There was no En Banc hearing.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 09-07-2022, 6:48 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Instead of an En Banc, the 3 judge panel sent it back to district court. There was no En Banc hearing.
I don't think that can be known, they don't tell you who the en banc panel is unless there is hearing, and this had no hearing.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 09-07-2022, 6:57 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I don't think that can be known, they don't tell you who the en banc panel is unless there is hearing, and this had no hearing.
They were not granted an En Banc hearing. The Appeals court sent the case back to district to get it right and consistent with NY v Bruen.

The only thing not consistent with the case is the requirement of needing a hunting license. We already won the case so people 18-20 could buy any long gun. What else is there to get fixed? HUNTING LICENSE REQUIRED
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 09-07-2022, 7:02 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
They were not granted an En Banc hearing. The Appeals court sent the case back to district to get it right and consistent with NY v Bruen.

The only thing not consistent with the case is the requirement of needing a hunting license. We already won the case so people 18-20 could buy any long gun. What else is there to get fixed? HUNTING LICENSE REQUIRED
The reason it was sent back to the district court is to re-enable the law for another year and cause delays in the removal of the law. The district court will sit on it for ages , like Rupp, and maybe sometimes in a few years they will hear about your HUNTING LICENSE REQUIRED
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 09-07-2022, 7:16 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
The reason it was sent back to the district court is to re-enable the law for another year and cause delays in the removal of the law. The district court will sit on it for ages , like Rupp, and maybe sometimes in a few years they will hear about your HUNTING LICENSE REQUIRED
Or, they get it to district, fix it right and appeals are denied.

Or, they sit on it and a Writ of Mandamus is requested to act accordingly. We don’t really know yet. You can speculate but the SCOTUS is primed for telling obtuse courts to knock it off, they said what they said and they don’t want more 2A cases.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 09-07-2022, 7:18 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Or, they get it to district, fix it right and appeals are denied.

Or, they sit on it and a Writ of Mandamus is requested to act accordingly. We don’t really no yet. You can speculate but the SCOTUS is primed for telling obtuse courts to knock it off, they said what they said and they don’t want more 2A cases.
You think a recalcitrant district court will do as your like ? It's not going to happen. We've seen this movie many times before. We already know what will happen.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 09-07-2022, 7:29 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
You think a recalcitrant district court will do as your like ? It's not going to happen. We've seen this movie many times before. We already know what will happen.
You’re stuck pre NY v Bruen in the head.

How come you didn’t comment on a possible Writ of Mandamus? Do you know what that means?
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 7:26 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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