CRPA Gun Show Lawsuit Filed

[pacrat]

FILING

https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...t-exhibits.pdf

Late last week, CRPA, in concert with B&L Productions, Second Amendment Foundation and Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, filed suit to repeal the ban on gun shows at the state-owned Orange County Fairgrounds. More details and the filing itself can be found at CRPA's News page.

Despite getting roundly defeated by CRPA, SAF, GOC, and others in lawsuit that invalidated a ban on gun shows at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in federal court in 2019, Min, pushed by gun-owner-hating Gavin Newsom, tried to get around the First Amendment issues that caused the court to strike down the Del Mar gun show ban. In seeking other ways to essentially ban gun shows, they came up with SB 264 -- which bans the sale of guns and ammo on the property, rather than banning the gun show itself.

[command_liner]

Some of us went to the long-ago trial in the federal court house in SF and watched the state attorney explain how it would be fine to have gun shows in county-owned locations -- given a long list of conditions. I think those conditions have been met now with Bruen.

Chuck M was there with us. I have not read the filing, but it sure would be a thousand types of awesome to quote the state's own reasoning back to them.

[FreshTapCoke]

I am happy I finally started contributing to the CRPA. I should not have waited so long and will be making up for lost time.

[abinsinia]

I think this case was dismissed on Aug. 18th

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...18348.35.0.pdf

[steel]

It's not over yet. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend portions of the complaint. The first amended complaint must be filed by 8-31-22.

Judge Battaglia was appointed by Obama. Let's see if he has the integrity to respect Bruen and do his job.

[abinsinia]

Sep 16, 2022 Extension of Time to File Document AND Extending Time to Answer (More than 30 days)

Extension filed on this case.

[WWDHD?]

All I ever hear about regarding this subject is Del Mar and Orange Co Fairgrounds. What about the Cow Palace- another State owned facility?

[abinsinia]

Looks like the extension was granted.

ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT 14 by Judge John W. Holcomb. The Court hereby GRANTS the motion and orders as follows; The time to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Complaint for the Stipulating Defendants is extended to 11/14/2022. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See document for further details) (yl) (Entered: 09/19/2022)

[abinsinia]

I think a longer extension was granted or requested,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...60016.16.1.pdf

[Liberty Rules]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I think this case was dismissed on Aug. 18th

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...18348.35.0.pdf

I am not familiar with this case, but I can tell you that the case document in the link is for a different case. Every pleading filed with a court identifies the case by its number: The dismissal document in your link is from Case 3:21-cv-01718-AJB-KSC. Case numbers include the year the complaint was filed. In that case, it was filed in 2021 (3:21...).

The case referenced in the original post above was filed in 2022. Its case number is 8:22-cv-01518 JWH (JDEx).

They are different cases. In addition, the three letter groupings in the case numbers are the initials of the judges and magistrates assigned to the case. In the 2021 case it is Judge Anthony J. Battaglia ("AJB"). In the 2022 case, the judge is John W. Holcomb ("JWH").

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Liberty Rules

I am not familiar with this case, but I can tell you that the case document in the link is for a different case. Every pleading filed with a court identifies the case by its number: The dismissal document in your link is from Case 3:21-cv-01718-AJB-KSC. Case numbers include the year the complaint was filed. In that case, it was filed in 2021 (3:21...).

The case referenced in the original post above was filed in 2022. Its case number is 8:22-cv-01518 JWH (JDEx).

They are different cases. In addition, the three letter groupings in the case numbers are the initials of the judges and magistrates assigned to the case. In the 2021 case it is Judge Anthony J. Battaglia ("AJB"). In the 2022 case, the judge is John W. Holcomb ("JWH").

Here's the court listener case link where I found the document.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...-gavin-newsom/

[Liberty Rules]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Here's the court listener case link where I found the document.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...-gavin-newsom/

That's for the 2022 case which this thread is about. The other link you provided to the dismissal decision is for a different case that was filed in 2021.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Liberty Rules

That's for the 2022 case which this thread is about. The other link you provided to the dismissal decision is for a different case that was filed in 2021.

The document link is from the docket Entry #16 attachment 1.

[Liberty Rules]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

The document link is from the docket Entry #16 attachment 1.

Sorry but you're mixing up your posts. I wrote about (and quoted) your post which is #4 in the thread. In that one, you linked to a 2021 case's order of dismissal and suggested that this 2022 case had already been dismissed. I explained why that is incorrect and that they are two different cases.

Now, in reply, you are talking about a different post later in the thread in which you linked to the extension of time in the 2022 case.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Liberty Rules

Sorry but you're mixing up your posts. I wrote about (and quoted) your post which is #4 in the thread. In that one, you linked to a 2021 case's order of dismissal and suggested that this 2022 case had already been dismissed. I explained why that is incorrect and that they are two different cases.

Now, in reply, you are talking about a different post later in the thread in which you linked to the extension of time in the 2022 case.

Post #11 is a link to the docket, and post #4 is a link to a document from the docket link in #11. It's docket entry 16 attachment 1.

You explained this #4 document is a different case, then I provided the docket where you can find the document I posted. As far as I know this case is the one in post #11.

[abinsinia]

Amended complaint filed,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants All Defendants amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,, 1, filed by Plaintiffs Jan Steven Merson, Gerald Clark, Asian Pacific American Gun Owner Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., B & L Productions, Inc., Eric Johnson, Chad Littrell (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Redlined Version)(Barvir, Anna) (Entered: 11/11/2022)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...60016.17.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants All Defendants amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,, 1, filed by Plaintiffs Jan Steven Merson, Gerald Clark, Asian Pacific American Gun Owner Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., B & L Productions, Inc., Eric Johnson, Chad Littrell (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Redlined Version)(Barvir, Anna) (Entered: 11/14/2022)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...60016.19.0.pdf

It's not clear what this is, but it's nearly identical to the 11/11 filing.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re the enforcement of California Penal Code sections 27573 and 27575 during the pendency of this action filed by Plaintiffs Asian Pacific American Gun Owner Association, B & L Productions, Inc., California Rifle & Pistoal Association, Incorporated, Gerald Clark, Eric Johnson, Chad Littrell, Jan Steven Merson, Second Amendment Law Center, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 1/6/2023 at 09:00 AM before Judge John W. Holcomb. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Declaration of Anna M. Barvir, # 4 Declaration of Carl Dawson Michel, # 5 Declaration of Tracy Olcott, # 6 Declaration of Gerald Clark, # 7 Declaration of Eric Johnson, # 8 Declaration of Chad Littrell, # 9 Declaration of Jan Steven Merson, # 10 Declaration of Richard Minnich, # 11 Declaration of Patrick Lopez, # 12 Declaration of Alan Gottlieb, # 13 Proposed Order) (Barvir, Anna) (Entered: 11/16/2022)

Seems like things are moving forward.

[abinsinia]

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re the enforcement of California Penal Code sections 27573 and 27575 during the pendency of this action 21 filed by Defendants 32nd District Agricultural Association, Rob Bonta, Does, Gavin Newsom, Karen Ross. (Attachments: # 1 DECLARATION OF JENNIFER OLVERA IN SUPPORT OF STATE DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 2 STATE DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE)(Attorney Nicole Juliet Kau added to party Does(pty:dft))(Kau, Nicole) (Entered: 12/09/2022)

Bonta filed opposition brief.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...60016.22.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge John W. Holcomb. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: The parties are DIRECTED to file simultaneous supplemental briefs, not to exceed 25 pages, no later than January 27, 2023, providing an analysis of the issues discussed above. The hearing on the Motion is CONTINUED to February 10, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, California. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See document for further details) (yl) (Entered: 01/06/2023)

Hearing date set.

[dougd1015]

Sounds good.

[abinsinia]

OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re the enforcement of California Penal Code sections 27573 and 27575 during the pendency of this action 21 filed by Defendants 32nd District Agricultural Association, Rob Bonta, Does, Gavin Newsom, Karen Ross. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Kau, Nicole) (Entered: 01/27/2023)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...60016.26.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

It seems the opposition relies heavily on Teixeira which I think is dead because it used the two step process.

Here's why they think it's relevant,

Although the Court finds in its Order for Supplemental Briefing Regarding
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction that Teixeira is “distinguishable on the
facts because it involved a single business partnership seeking a permit from
Alameda County to open a gun store in an unincorporated portion of the county,”
ECF No. 25 at 2, Teixeira remains relevant to the analysis required under Bruen for
at least two reasons: (1) Teixeira considered the same type of historical evidence
called for by Bruen, and (2) Teixeria held that restricting the places where firearms
may be sold does not impede consumers’ ability to purchase firearms when
numerous alternative sales venues are available. Teixeira, 873 F.3d at 678.

This is bogus, because you can see in their quotes from Teixeira case the judge claimed the state can impede people ability to obtain guns, but that's not the standard. They can't impede you ability to get arms period.

[abinsinia]

The judge is John W. Holcomb. He was nominated by Trump.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...60016.26.0.pdf

I find one particular claim amazing. First, these A-holes state: "Like the challenged laws here, these historical regulations were designed primarily to prevent illegal weapons trafficking and to ensure that dangerous individuals do not obtain such weapons." Later on they state: "The California Legislature enacted SB 264 and SB 915 to address gun trafficking and prevent dangerous or prohibited persons from acquiring firearms—and more specifically, because of its concern that gun shows are 'the critical moment in the chain of custody for many guns, the point at which they move from the somewhat-regulated legal market to the shadowy, no questions-asked illegal market.'” What is glaringly missing is any explanation how either of these measures prevents or precludes illegal weapons trafficking or how they prevent or preclude dangerous or prohibited persons from acquiring firearms, given the ignored fact that CA requires BG checks for FFL and PP firearm transfers.

But they do make one statement I agree with. They state: "the Second Amendment, as understood by '[e]arly American legislators
and commentators,' was meant to 'protect[] Americans against tyranny and oppression.'" I must agree because it logically and necessarily follows that Californians have a Second Amendment right to use their arms to eliminate the California tyrants, like the Governor, Attorney General and members of the state legislature who are trying to impose tyranny and to oppress the Second Amendment rights of Californians.

[abinsinia]

Given the historical inquiry mandated by Bruen, this brief cites many
relevant firearms laws, some of which were drafted well before the Thirteenth
Amendment’s abolition of slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal
Protection Clause. While these laws are pertinent to the discussion, Defendants
emphasize their strong disagreement with racial and other improper discrimination
that existed in some such laws, and which stand in stark contrast to California’s
commonsense firearm laws, which are designed to justly and equitably protect all
Californians. The listing of such racist and discriminatory statutes in this brief
should in no way be construed as an endorsement of such laws by Defendants or
their counsel in this matter.

This footnote on page 10 seems to indicate that the historic laws they showcase are racist laws, but current day Democrat laws really aren't racist. They're trying to inoculate against being called racist in later briefs.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

This footnote on page 10 seems to indicate that the historic laws they showcase are racist laws, but current day Democrat laws really aren't racist. They're trying to inoculate against being called racist in later briefs.

The court should ask California "if these laws were based on now unconstitutional reasons how are they relevant at this time"?

[abinsinia]

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF NO. 21 ] (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge John W. Holcomb. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: Defendants are DIRECTED to file a supplemental brief, not to exceed 25 pages, no later than February 24, 2023, providing an analysis of the issues discussed above. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a supplemental brief, not to exceed 25 pages, no later than March 10, 2023, responding to Defendants' supplemental brief regarding the issues discussed above. Defendants are DIRECTED to file a reply brief, not to exceed 10 pages, no later than March 24, 2023, replying to Plaintiffs' supplemental brief regarding the issues discussed above. The hearing on the Motion is CONTINUED to Thursday, April 6, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, California. IT IS SO ORDERED. (yl) (Entered: 02/01/2023)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...60016.28.0.pdf


I was hoping for more spreadsheets but I guess not.

[CSACANNONEER]

Still sounds like a 1A issue if I can't verbally agree to purchase a firearm while standing on the property.

[abinsinia]

Some interesting things in the order.

Defendants unpersuasively devote over a third of their brief
arguing that SB 264 and SB 915 did not regulate any protected conduct under the
Second Amendment.4 The Court did not seek supplemental briefing to permit
Defendants to mount a rearguard defense of the Ninth Circuit’s pre-Bruen legal
authorities.5 Instead, the Court intended to provide Defendants with an
opportunity to “justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the
Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2130.
Furthermore, as directed by the Bruen Court, “‘[i]n our adversarial system of
adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation.’ Courts are thus
entitled to decide a case based on the historical record compiled by the parties.”
Id. at 2130 n.6 (citation omitted)

I don't know what history California can provide to the judge. Seems like there might be something they can slap together, but it would not surprise me if there is literally no history and I don't know what they do at that point.

[abinsinia]

ORDER 29 by Judge John W. Holcomb. Before the Court is the Stipulation and Joint Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the First Amended Complaint by More Than 30 Days. Having reviewed the motion, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: The motion is GRANTED. The Stipulating Defendants are DIRECTED to file their response to the First Amended Complaint 21 days after the Court issues its ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. IT IS SO ORDERED. (yl) (Entered: 02/03/2023)

Defendants requested 30 days extension for supplemental briefing and it was granted.

[abinsinia]

OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re the enforcement of California Penal Code sections 27573 and 27575 during the pendency of this action 21 filed by Defendants 32nd District Agricultural Association, Rob Bonta, Does, Gavin Newsom, Karen Ross. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration)(Kau, Nicole) (Entered: 02/24/2023)

This docket filing looks like California's filing in opposition to PI.

[abinsinia]

OBJECTIONS to the State Defendants' Expert Declarations; Motion to Strike or Exclude the State Defendants' Expert Declarations filed by Plaintiffs Asian Pacific American Gun Owner Association, B & L Productions, Inc., California Rifle & Pistoal Association, Incorporated, Gerald Clark, Eric Johnson. (Barvir, Anna) (Entered: 03/10/2023)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...60016.33.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO STATE DEFENDANTS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re the enforcement of California Penal Code sections 27573 and 27575 during the pendency of this action 21 filed by Plaintiffs Asian Pacific American Gun Owner Association, B & L Productions, Inc., California Rifle & Pistoal Association, Incorporated, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Gerald Clark. (Barvir, Anna) (Entered: 03/10/2023)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...60016.32.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Defendants 32nd District Agricultural Association, Rob Bonta, Does, Gavin Newsom, Karen Ross. (Kau, Nicole) (Entered: 03/24/2023)]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...60016.34.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

RESPONSE filed by Defendants 32nd District Agricultural Association, Rob Bonta, Does, Gavin Newsom, Karen Rossto Objection, 33 TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT DECLARATIONS (Kau, Nicole) (Entered: 03/24/2023)

Don't have the document yet.