|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#282
|
||||
|
||||
This is the essence of Progressive/Leftist governance - the entire thing is an experiment whereby our betters (auto/technocrats) run our lives for us because we're too stupid to do so in an enlightened (meaning according to their dictates) way.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#283
|
||||
|
||||
The state also, unsurprisingly, reiterated their argument that "It's not infringing on anyone's rights, because there are still some handguns left on the roster".
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
Stick a fork in it, we’re done fellas They have had 5 years for their ‘little experiment’ and still no dual microstamped gun technology exists. That should have been enough time to experiment, yet they seem to want to continue it. The 2nd is dead here in this state...
|
#285
|
||||
|
||||
Let's see how the judges rule before throwing in the towel.
Yes, I know the courts are against us but until we get the decision we won't know. Experiments? With rights?
__________________
|
#287
|
||||
|
||||
There's no set timeframe that a ruling has to be issued in, but it typically seems to happen between 9-24 months with 2a-related matters.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. Last edited by CandG; 04-04-2018 at 12:39 PM.. |
#288
|
||||
|
||||
For reference - Pena Vs Cid, the other roster case, was argued 13 months ago, and we still haven't heard anything.
So don't start holding your breath just yet.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#289
|
||||
|
||||
CA courts are much quicker than federal courts from what I've read.
|
#290
|
||||
|
||||
I keep forgetting this one is in a different court system, I think you're correct
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The argument that the statute is a "technology forcing statute" (as presented by the Law School Amici brief) is outside the parameters of the issues to be decided as framed by the court. To refresh, the issues the Court agreed to review were 1) whether the AG's certification was subject to judicial review [the DOJ arguing from the trial court on that it was not], and if it is subject to review 2) what is the standard of review in the trial court? Therefore, the Court could quite properly decline to address this issue at all. On the other hand, this is a question of law to be decided by a court, and is reviewable on appeal "de novo" (literally "of new" or more colloquially, from scratch). Personally, I do not think it is a winner. First, it is a "Hail Mary", and obviously so, and second, the statute is not framed as a technology forcing issue. IT did not simply impose the requirement and then leave it to the manufacturers to comply, it instead does not impose the requirement UNTIL the AG certifies that the technology exists that will stamp a casing with a unique identifier in two locations. Since the technology--apparently admittedly--does not exist, the prerequisites of the statute have not been met. Last but not least, the argument that the requirement being omposed now does not violate the Constitutional rights because guns still exist on the Roster is irrelevant and not likely to be reached. Courts will, as a matter of policy, not reach constitutional issues if the case can be resolved without reference to such issues. |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
I'd actually have to look it up to see if it applies to the Supreme Court. It most certainly applies to all trial courts and the courts of appeal. The law specifies that each judge must certify under oath each month that he/she/they have no matters pending that were submitted for decision more than 90 days ago in order to receive his or her pay check. Technically, a case is not "submitted" in the courts of appeal until the court says it is, or upon the completion of oral argument. Most cases in the courts of appeal are submitted on the briefs; all cases in the Supreme Court are argued. In my experience in the Court of Appeal, cases are usually decided before oral argument, and I suspect the same is true for the Supreme Court. The odds of changing their minds is quite low absent a spectacular policy argument.
|
#295
|
|||
|
|||
Found this little nugget in that online rag, sfgate:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...a-12806379.php |
#296
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#297
|
||||
|
||||
Not that facts are SFgate's strong suit... but the article does say "The court will rule on the case within 90 days," for what that's worth.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#298
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The current makeup is 5-5... 5 from Bush, 1 from Clinton, and 4 from Obama, with 3 vacancies. The thought of Trump flipping the Southern District court to 8-5 makes me smile.
__________________
- Rich |
#299
|
||||
|
||||
That’s likely a coordinated talking point as the same language appears on the smartgunlaws (now Giffords center) website.
|
#300
|
||||
|
||||
Probably the only "resource" the editor read to research their article.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
Was the court video of the oral arguments posted anywhere? I looked on the court website but all I found was up to March.
__________________
My Adventures |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
Same here. I bet it takes them a few days or so to post the recordings...
|
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Wonder if we can contact them and as for a link to the recording? I may try when I get a chance.
|
#308
|
||||
|
||||
I watched the arguments and I think the NSSF loses. But I also think the Ninth Circuit is waiting on the outcome of this case to decide Pena. If we lose at the Supreme Court we win there and vice versa
|
#310
|
||||
|
||||
This is an exercise in stupidity if you ask me. This technology does not advance any objective evidence that clearly shows who fired the weapon but only confirms that a particular weapon did the firing. That means a whole new division of tax paid workers to keep track of what we already know. I doubt one conviction in the foreseeable future will hinge on this technology. And what if criminals mix and match parts? Barrel stats say one gun and micro-stamping says another. That should raise reasonable doubt for the defense. Here we go again ladies and gentlemen down the rabbit hole of stupidity in california after our courts have dined on Peyote, marijuana, and maybe a little coke up the nose? Great state isn't it?
|
#313
|
|||
|
|||
All you've said is that the NSSF had a "rough ride." Why do you think it loses?
|
#314
|
||||
|
||||
Unless some enterprising criminal does some brass cleanup at the range and liberally sprinkles casings at the scene of a shooting. Imagine the nightmare of having to recover 100% of your spent brass. Then there's the issue of securely disposing of it.
|
#315
|
||||
|
||||
The justices questioned them much harder and appeared to not buy the premise that impossibility was a law rather than a aspirational maxim And even if it is it may have been overridden by the introduction of this law which overwrote it in this circumstance.
|
#316
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That to me would be a strange way to read a statute that states the certification is not to occur until the AG certifies that the technology to comply with the statutory requirements is widely available to the industry. It simply is not available, at least not according to the evidence supplied by the DOJ. Do we allow the AG to rewrite the statute so as to become a "technology forcing" statute when it never was? Well, we will see soon enough. Moreover, that issue appears beyond the issues accepted for review. |
#317
|
||||
|
||||
The session on 4/3 was uploaded several days ago, but 4/4 still isn't up. It takes youtubers a couple hours to upload a video. What's up with the state taking a month+? This is ridiculous.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/35333.htm |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
Here you go fellas, the 4/4 recording is now available:
http://jcc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer....12&clip_id=688 Last edited by Deschoots; 05-02-2018 at 5:27 PM.. |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
I finally got to read the briefs, and this is a strange case indeed. Instead of arguing that the AG abused her discretion in certifying that the technology existed that was generally available that complied with the law, the NSSF instead mounted a facial challenge to the statute on the basis that complying with the technological mandate of stamping in two locations is impossible. Therefore, the argument goes, the statute is invalid since it requires an impossibility. According to the maxims of jurisprudence, the law can never require impossibilities. The court of appeal agreed. Now we have to see what the Supremes will do. But then, I do not think that the maxims of jurisprudence are "aspirational."
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|