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
  #1281  
Old 02-02-2024, 4:51 PM
SpudmanWP SpudmanWP is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not to mention that Heller already ruled that mandatory safe storage is unconstitutional.
Those that exist elsewhere will be challenged nationwide in an upcoming wave of cases.
Reply With Quote
  #1282  
Old 02-05-2024, 10:39 AM
Interpol Interpol is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4SUPER9 View Post
I am actually in favor of "common sense" gun laws. The problem is, most of the laws in Cali have no common sense. This is just ridiculous, and as the PI said, "repugnant".
The problem is, there's no legal definition of "common sense". It's entirely arbitrary. What may be considered common sense to others may not be to you or me.

Stop using the term. There is nothing "common sense" about any law. The term was coined by ignorant tyrants at Moms Demand Action, Brady, Giffords, and Everytown to label pro-2A advocates as lacking common sense. If these organizations really cared about gun safety they'd be promoting more gun safety education and training, not infringement of 2A rights.

Last edited by Interpol; 02-05-2024 at 10:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1283  
Old 02-14-2024, 11:19 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,829
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Interpol View Post
The problem is, there's no legal definition of "common sense". It's entirely arbitrary. What may be considered common sense to others may not be to you or me.

Stop using the term. There is nothing "common sense" about any law. The term was coined by ignorant tyrants at Moms Demand Action, Brady, Giffords, and Everytown to label pro-2A advocates as lacking common sense. If these organizations really cared about gun safety they'd be promoting more gun safety education and training, not infringement of 2A rights.
Very true. Every Democrat pol says that his/her bill seeks "common sense" gun laws, but not one of them have ever, EVER I SAY, taken the time to explain exactly what is so common sense about their proposed law. Grossly generalizing them, all seem predicated on the "common sense" proposition that "more guns equals more gun crimes." Therefore, eliminating guns will reduce crime. We used to hear this all the time from the police chiefs and Sheriffs in So.Cal as the reason they refused to issue CCWS, yet when pressed in deposition, not one of them had done any research or read any study that empirically supported their "common sense" proposition.
Reply With Quote
  #1284  
Old 02-15-2024, 11:31 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Very true. Every Democrat pol says that his/her bill seeks "common sense" gun laws, but not one of them have ever, EVER I SAY, taken the time to explain exactly what is so common sense about their proposed law. Grossly generalizing them, all seem predicated on the "common sense" proposition that "more guns equals more gun crimes." Therefore, eliminating guns will reduce crime. We used to hear this all the time from the police chiefs and Sheriffs in So.Cal as the reason they refused to issue CCWS, yet when pressed in deposition, not one of them had done any research or read any study that empirically supported their "common sense" proposition.
Yeah, tell that to the people in Ohio who just passed constitutional carry in June '22 and rather than the result being 'blood in the streets', crime has actually gone down since enacting this bill.
Reply With Quote
  #1285  
Old 02-16-2024, 1:47 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 792
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

A new May response brief filed.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ring-Brief.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #1286  
Old 02-16-2024, 3:45 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,829
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
The brief does a good job refuting the State's arguments and citations--especially the misleading ones for which the AG is well known in 2A litigation.
Reply With Quote
  #1287  
Old 02-16-2024, 5:25 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,623
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The brief does a good job refuting the State's arguments and citations--especially the misleading ones for which the AG is well known in 2A litigation.
Agree. It is very well written.
Reply With Quote
  #1288  
Old 02-17-2024, 11:53 AM
WithinReason WithinReason is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 690
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Very detailed. A comprehensive refutation. Nicely done!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1289  
Old 02-18-2024, 2:27 PM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WithinReason View Post
Very detailed. A comprehensive refutation. Nicely done!
That was the Carralero team brief.

Mr. Moros says their (May v Bonta) brief due soon.
That should be good too.
Reply With Quote
  #1290  
Old 02-24-2024, 11:53 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From CRPA latest brief (not yet logged into filings) in response to Bonta et all brief filed 1/19/24.

“Though the State has marshalled a small army of historians, their evidence often supports Plaintiffs’ arguments,” argues the brief. “California fails to show that any of its proffered analogues are sufficiently widespread within the relevant time period—the Founding era—or relevantly similar in ‘how’ and ‘why’ they burden the right to self-defense. Indeed, most of the challenged locations existed in some form at the Founding, and Plaintiffs are not aware of any tradition of carry bans there—nor, importantly, has California offered any such tradition.”
Reply With Quote
  #1291  
Old 02-24-2024, 12:08 PM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In other news, three different Law enforcement agencies PEACE OFFICERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF CA., CAIFORNIA STATE SHERIFF ASSOC. AND ASSOCIATION OF HIGHWAY PATROLMEN have filed an outstanding brief in support of plaintiff.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1708738315

We've been waiting for law enforcement to do more than lip service. Well, other than outright saying publicly they will not enforce the law (which could jeopardize them and subject them to lawsuits), this is a pretty good second place.

A powerful statement by the largest LEO agencies in Ca. basically stating among other things, that SB2 will NOT reduce crime, but rather INCREASE crime.

Who would know better.......Law enforcement agencies that have to deal with crime in the streets real time, day to day, or a bunch of pampered, self- congratulating, self-important, pandering politicians?
Reply With Quote
  #1292  
Old 02-24-2024, 1:50 PM
Ishooter's Avatar
Ishooter Ishooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
In other news, three different Law enforcement agencies PEACE OFFICERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF CA., CAIFORNIA STATE SHERIFF ASSOC. AND ASSOCIATION OF HIGHWAY PATROLMEN have filed an outstanding brief in support of plaintiff.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1708738315

We've been waiting for law enforcement to do more than lip service. Well, other than outright saying publicly they will not enforce the law (which could jeopardize them and subject them to lawsuits), this is a pretty good second place.

A powerful statement by the largest LEO agencies in Ca. basically stating among other things, that SB2 will NOT reduce crime, but rather INCREASE crime.

Who would know better.......Law enforcement agencies that have to deal with crime in the streets real time, day to day, or a bunch of pampered, self- congratulating, self-important, pandering politicians?
The LEO organizations should join the plaintiff in the case.
Reply With Quote
  #1293  
Old 02-24-2024, 2:07 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,623
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
In other news, three different Law enforcement agencies PEACE OFFICERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF CA., CAIFORNIA STATE SHERIFF ASSOC. AND ASSOCIATION OF HIGHWAY PATROLMEN have filed an outstanding brief in support of plaintiff.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1708738315

We've been waiting for law enforcement to do more than lip service. Well, other than outright saying publicly they will not enforce the law (which could jeopardize them and subject them to lawsuits), this is a pretty good second place.

A powerful statement by the largest LEO agencies in Ca. basically stating among other things, that SB2 will NOT reduce crime, but rather INCREASE crime.

Who would know better.......Law enforcement agencies that have to deal with crime in the streets real time, day to day, or a bunch of pampered, self- congratulating, self-important, pandering politicians?
While the brief was interesting, I found an omission. I did not see any discussion of the effects of states adopting permitless carry, which I strongly believe shows that high permit fees, oppressive training requirements and discretionary background check requirements have little to no effect on reducing violent crime.
Reply With Quote
  #1294  
Old 02-25-2024, 11:29 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
While the brief was interesting, I found an omission. I did not see any discussion of the effects of states adopting permitless carry, which I strongly believe shows that high permit fees, oppressive training requirements and discretionary background check requirements have little to no effect on reducing violent crime.
That's because this lawsuit and this brief are not about those things.
Permit less carry and discretionary requirements are not what this lawsuit is.
They addressed SB2 May v Bonta (sensitive places only).

The issues you bring up are completely valid, but that is an argument for another day, another place, another time. They don't want to get things mixed up, and distract from the issues in this suit.
CRPA purposely omitted your list in their suit, reasoning that if the sensitive place aren't defeated first, then those other things don't even matter.

So, in my opinion they did a great job on the issues regarding sensitive places, that's it.
Reply With Quote
  #1295  
Old 02-25-2024, 5:07 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,623
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
That's because this lawsuit and this brief are not about those things.
Permit less carry and discretionary requirements are not what this lawsuit is.
They addressed SB2 May v Bonta (sensitive places only).

The issues you bring up are completely valid, but that is an argument for another day, another place, another time. They don't want to get things mixed up, and distract from the issues in this suit.
CRPA purposely omitted your list in their suit, reasoning that if the sensitive place aren't defeated first, then those other things don't even matter.

So, in my opinion they did a great job on the issues regarding sensitive places, that's it.
I understand that the principle issue is sensitive places. But they addressed RTC laws and permitless carry is the ultimate RTC law.
Reply With Quote
  #1296  
Old 02-25-2024, 9:11 PM
rmklaw rmklaw is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Posts: 27
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Excellent and well reasoned brief. We should be proud of these LEO agencies for taking the right position.
Reply With Quote
  #1297  
Old 02-26-2024, 7:37 AM
BigPimping's Avatar
BigPimping BigPimping is offline
Still in The Game
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Norcal. East Bay.
Posts: 20,799
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

All gun laws are illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #1298  
Old 02-26-2024, 8:40 AM
SpudmanWP SpudmanWP is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPimping View Post
All gun laws are illegal.
Not according to Heller or Bruen
Reply With Quote
  #1299  
Old 02-26-2024, 11:13 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
Not to mention that Heller already ruled that mandatory safe storage is unconstitutional.
Those that exist elsewhere will be challenged nationwide in an upcoming wave of cases.
See, that's what I thought. And yet these laws that mandate all firearms to
be stored 'unless under the immediate control of the owner' keep coming up
in anti gun states. I believe some are even trying to push to delete the 'under the control' part and mandate that guns must be stored in a safety device that has a 'fingerprint reader'. So you can't store guns in various parts of your house without locking it up. What good is a locked up gun?
Reply With Quote
  #1300  
Old 02-26-2024, 11:32 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmklaw View Post
Excellent and well reasoned brief. We should be proud of these LEO agencies for taking the right position.
Yes I agree, and I also thought the latest Carralero brief did a better job attacking the Vampire clause. The state is trying to trick and obfuscate turning the ?the well-developed concept of implied license.? on it's head, arguing that if business owners have the right to restrict certain behaviors, (which they do), then the state can restrict those behaviors for them by presumption.

Check it out starting page 31.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1708111332

We are still waiting for CRPA response brief, due any time now. It will be interesting to see their argument against the vampire clause also.
Reply With Quote
  #1301  
Old 02-27-2024, 11:20 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

May v Bonta Appellees (CRPA) response brief now available here:

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ring-Brief.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #1302  
Old 02-27-2024, 2:28 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,623
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Why am I not seeing page 27?
OK, there it is!
Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 02-27-2024, 3:09 PM
WithinReason WithinReason is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 690
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

My favorite lines:

"Second, Appellees presented data from four other states showing how extraordinarily law-abiding Americans with CCW permits are. 1-ER-48. And “CCW permitholders are not the gun wielders legislators should fear . . . CCW permitholders are not responsible for any of the mass shootings or horrific gun violence that has occurred in California.""

and

"...the State did not even attempt to rebut the data, nor does it do so in this appeal. It has implicitly conceded that Californians with CCW permits pose no serious public safety threat."

and

"In sum, the most serious harm the State would suffer if it lost this appeal is the hurt pride of the politicians who enacted SB 2 to willingly frustrate and nullify the effects of Bruen."


Great writing!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 02-27-2024, 3:28 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,829
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
See, that's what I thought. And yet these laws that mandate all firearms to
be stored 'unless under the immediate control of the owner' keep coming up
in anti gun states. I believe some are even trying to push to delete the 'under the control' part and mandate that guns must be stored in a safety device that has a 'fingerprint reader'. So you can't store guns in various parts of your house without locking it up. What good is a locked up gun?
This was already litigated in the Ninth Circuit after San Francisco enacted a mandatory safe storage ordinance that came right up to the limit of Heller, but held not to cross into unconstitutional territory. The Supreme Court declined review in 2015.
Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 02-28-2024, 9:47 AM
4SUPER9 4SUPER9 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2023
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WithinReason View Post
My favorite lines:
...
"In sum, the most serious harm the State would suffer if it lost this appeal is the hurt pride of the politicians who enacted SB 2 to willingly frustrate and nullify the effects of Bruen."


Great writing!
Haven't had the time to read it yet, but wow!

I may have missed this: do we have a specific date in April for oral arguments?
Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 02-28-2024, 10:58 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4SUPER9 View Post
Haven't had the time to read it yet, but wow!

I may have missed this: do we have a specific date in April for oral arguments?
April 11. I believe before the merits (3 Judges) panel.

Can't find any further information.
Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 02-28-2024, 11:03 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Found it.

"NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Thursday, April 11, 2024 ? 09:30 A.M. ? Courtroom 1 ? Scheduled Location: San Francisco CA View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here. NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you are expected to appear in person at the Courthouse"

So, the panel may forgo oral arguments and rely on briefs only.
There may not even be oral arguments then.
Ok with me.
Would like to know who the Judges are.
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 3:39 PM.




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