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
  #1401  
Old 03-03-2021, 1:10 PM
Silence Dogood's Avatar
Silence Dogood Silence Dogood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 169
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Shhhhishhhhh. Let them push the pendulum too far.

It’d be nice to get an excuse for SCOTUS to correctly rule as unconstitutional the restrictions codified in the NFA, GCA, and FOPA.

EDIT to add: No, that’d be hell in the interim but the end result of a stronger 2A would be nice.

Last edited by Silence Dogood; 03-03-2021 at 1:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1402  
Old 03-05-2021, 7:23 AM
SpookyWatcher SpookyWatcher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is the decision more likely to come down on a Friday than any other day like the last two from Saint Benetiz? Maybe even late late Friday given the shenanigans where they found a judge at 930pm on a Friday night.

Or is there no strategy in publishing his decision?

Just curious how close I need to follow the thread. I'd hate to only have 30 mins and miss the window if there is one.
Reply With Quote
  #1403  
Old 03-05-2021, 7:52 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,413
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpookyWatcher View Post
Is the decision more likely to come down on a Friday than any other day like the last two from Saint Benetiz? Maybe even late late Friday given the shenanigans where they found a judge at 930pm on a Friday night.

Or is there no strategy in publishing his decision?

Just curious how close I need to follow the thread. I'd hate to only have 30 mins and miss the window if there is one.
I'm sure he will utilize *some* strategy in timing is ruling (In Duncan, for example, I'm sure it wasn't a cooincidence that his PI was issued 2 days before the law would have taken effect), but there's no way to know.

I know everyone here (myself included) wants to believe that this case is the TOP priority for him, and that all his attention should be focused on this until it's done. But that's probably not reality. I'm sure he's also working on other things that might take priority.

Patience; the ruling will come, but not before it's ready. And I'm sure the read will be well worth the wait.
__________________
AW Reg. will likely be reopened summer '21 to those who weren't able to register by 7/18. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!
Reply With Quote
  #1404  
Old 03-06-2021, 3:41 AM
NATO762's Avatar
NATO762 NATO762 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: SF Bay-ish Area
Posts: 290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelrain82 View Post
I think the states continual overreach, may have shot themselves in the dick. By forcing us to register rifles, handgun style, they forced themselves into a situation which will show how many possible AR and other "assault rifle" type fire arms are in common use. They can't deny the data because it will show their incompetence. They know they are ****ed this round and are hoping the feds hit back with their version of an AWB. Data isn't always your friend.
No but they can hide the data, even when there are laws that say they must release it. Seems the DOJ is above the law.
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...ht=Withholding

Quote:
California AG office withholding data on gun sales, restraining orders from researchers
Benitez is probably aware of this and that’s why he’s asking specifically for sales data. He could find them in contempt of court and in violation of existing law. More like a double catch-22

ETA: When you have a conservative judge and UC Davis’ Wintemute both asking for the same data, you are definitely between a rock and a hard place.
__________________
"Never! Jesus Christ, what don’t you understand about never?"

-Sen. Joe Manchin on eliminating the filibuster

Last edited by NATO762; 03-06-2021 at 4:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1405  
Old 03-06-2021, 7:58 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,323
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NATO762 View Post
When you have a conservative judge and UC Davis’ Wintemute both asking for the same data, you are definitely between a rock and a hard place.
I don't fully understand why they won't give Wintemute the data. He can be trusted to massage it to make them look good, not bad, since he's not actually a scientist. And at worst, massage the data to make sure it can be used by the DoJ to justify more underground regulation.

How is that not a win/win for the DoJ?
__________________
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
  #1406  
Old 03-06-2021, 11:12 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 941
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I don't fully understand why they won't give Wintemute the data. He can be trusted to massage it to make them look good, not bad, since he's not actually a scientist. And at worst, massage the data to make sure it can be used by the DoJ to justify more underground regulation.

How is that not a win/win for the DoJ?
It's so bad for their side but even he can pull off the scam. In addition the more they make data available to only him it will look like what it is and they are very afraid that someone more honest will demand the data. Then the jig is truly up and they are screwed.

I think the real issue with these studies is how they are used in courts. When he testifies we should be able to get all the data as part of discovery.
Reply With Quote
  #1407  
Old 03-06-2021, 4:58 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,907
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I don't fully understand why they won't give Wintemute the data. He can be trusted to massage it to make them look good, not bad, since he's not actually a scientist. And at worst, massage the data to make sure it can be used by the DoJ to justify more underground regulation.

How is that not a win/win for the DoJ?
What if the data doesn't support their justification for what they do, or are trying to do?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1408  
Old 03-06-2021, 5:26 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 50,626
iTrader: 110 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
What if the data doesn't support their justification for what they do, or are trying to do?
That's the most likely reason not to give the data out.
It would show that criminal uses of guns are down under 0.1% while non-criminal uses are up around 99.9%.
They are trying to legislate based on the 0.1% statistics while ignoring the 99.9%.
Reply With Quote
  #1409  
Old 03-06-2021, 6:24 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

... The motions panel webpage is leading to a 404. Usually this displays the judges who are selected to be on the motions panel for this month.
This is the link: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/motionspanel.php

This is the archived link for 2/15/21: https://web.archive.org/web/20210215...tionspanel.php

Currently this means the public cannot view the motions panel for this month of March 2021. I'm not exactly sure by what other means the 9th circuit makes motions panel information available. I've sent an email to the 9th circuit questions email address, though I thought I would bring this to the attention of everyone. I hope this is webpage error of some sort and not an attempt by the courts to further obfuscate their processes.
Reply With Quote
  #1410  
Old 03-06-2021, 9:55 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,323
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
What if the data doesn't support their justification for what they do, or are trying to do?
Wintemute can easily misrepresent the data to show exactly what the DoJ (and Legislature) wants.

That is what he's paid to do. Why on earth would he bite the hand that feeds him? He's a shill.
__________________
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
  #1411  
Old 03-07-2021, 7:13 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,653
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Wintemute can easily misrepresent the data to show exactly what the DoJ (and Legislature) wants.

That is what he's paid to do. Why on earth would he bite the hand that feeds him? He's a shill.
Not all the research done by his group is flattering to gun control. There was a study that came from his group not that long ago which showed universal background checks in California accomplished nothing. I think it was this one,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...161?via%3Dihub
Reply With Quote
  #1412  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:01 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,413
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
That's the most likely reason not to give the data out.
It would show that criminal uses of guns are down under 0.1% while non-criminal uses are up around 99.9%.
They are trying to legislate based on the 0.1% statistics while ignoring the 99.9%.
Indeed.

Also worth noting, some of the specific data that DOJ is refusing to disclose involves their records of known armed prohibited persons and the weapons they're supposed to be confiscating from them.

Those records could possibly get them in some ethical (and probably even legal) trouble, since we all know DOJ decided to remove their Armed Prohibited Persons task force (either in whole or in part) from the embarrassingly large backlog of known armed prohibited persons, and instead re-purposed those resources and funding, probably without any authority to do so, to shake down and intimidate law-abiding gun owners.

I'm guessing they'd prefer any records about that to remain private.

(And it's absolutely mind-boggling that this has been known for years, yet all of the 2A organizations have barely acknowledged it, and none have shown any interest in addressing it... but that's a topic for a different thread.)
__________________
AW Reg. will likely be reopened summer '21 to those who weren't able to register by 7/18. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!

Last edited by CandG; 03-07-2021 at 1:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1413  
Old 03-07-2021, 12:34 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,323
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Not all the research done by his group is flattering to gun control. There was a study that came from his group not that long ago which showed universal background checks in California accomplished nothing. I think it was this one,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...161?via%3Dihub
Interesting. I had no idea Wintemute was capable of this.
__________________
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
  #1414  
Old 03-07-2021, 1:27 PM
Silence Dogood's Avatar
Silence Dogood Silence Dogood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 169
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
Indeed.

Also worth noting, some of the specific data that DOJ is refusing to disclose involves their records of known armed prohibited persons and the weapons they're supposed to be confiscating from them.

Those records could possibly get them in some ethical (and probably even legal) trouble, since we all know they have decided to take the Armed Prohibited Persons task force (either in whole or in part) off the embarrassingly large backlog of known armed prohibited persons, and instead re-purposed those resources and funding to chase after law-abiding gun owners, possibly without having authorization to make that decision. I'm guessing they'd prefer the records about that to remain private. (And it boggles my mind that this has been known for years, but none of the 2A organizations seem to have any interest in addressing it... but that's a topic for a different thread.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Not all the research done by his group is flattering to gun control. There was a study that came from his group not that long ago which showed universal background checks in California accomplished nothing. I think it was this one,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...161?via%3Dihub
Interesting. I had no idea Wintemute was capable of this.
It’s reassuring to think that at least one party in all of this is doing his duty, even if it isn’t the A.G. or the Armed Prohibited Persons task force (besides the Honorable Judge Benitez, that is).
Reply With Quote
  #1415  
Old 03-07-2021, 8:25 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,426
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
Indeed.

Also worth noting, some of the specific data that DOJ is refusing to disclose involves their records of known armed prohibited persons and the weapons they're supposed to be confiscating from them.

Those records could possibly get them in some ethical (and probably even legal) trouble, since we all know DOJ decided to remove their Armed Prohibited Persons task force (either in whole or in part) from the embarrassingly large backlog of known armed prohibited persons, and instead re-purposed those resources and funding, probably without any authority to do so, to shake down and intimidate law-abiding gun owners.

I'm guessing they'd prefer any records about that to remain private.

(And it's absolutely mind-boggling that this has been known for years, yet all of the 2A organizations have barely acknowledged it, and none have shown any interest in addressing it... but that's a topic for a different thread.)
Ugh. Soo nauseating.
Reply With Quote
  #1416  
Old 03-08-2021, 6:53 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,739
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Interesting. I had no idea Wintemute was capable of this.
This doesn’t surprise me. It’s not him doing the research. He has students working on this project. You can’t manipulate data in front of working researchers without being called out. It’s always about the money and he got it. Now the state has turned on him. Lol! Even the former head of BOF got fired, then worked for a pro gun group only to end up with an anti gun group who wanted to pay him more money. It’s always about the money.
Reply With Quote
  #1417  
Old 03-08-2021, 10:03 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
... The motions panel webpage is leading to a 404. Usually this displays the judges who are selected to be on the motions panel for this month.
This is the link: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/motionspanel.php

This is the archived link for 2/15/21: https://web.archive.org/web/20210215...tionspanel.php

Currently this means the public cannot view the motions panel for this month of March 2021. I'm not exactly sure by what other means the 9th circuit makes motions panel information available. I've sent an email to the 9th circuit questions email address, though I thought I would bring this to the attention of everyone. I hope this is webpage error of some sort and not an attempt by the courts to further obfuscate their processes.
Update on this: I've been informed that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will no longer update that page, and will no longer make it known who the sitting motions panel is. I confirmed with them that this wasn't announced or notified anywhere. afaik that page has been up for at least ~12 years (going by Internet Archive anyway).

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 03-08-2021 at 10:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1418  
Old 03-08-2021, 10:19 AM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 50,626
iTrader: 110 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
Update on this: I've been informed that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will no longer update that page, and will no longer make it known who the sitting motions panel is. I confirmed with them that this wasn't announced or notified anywhere. afaik that page has been up for at least ~12 years (going by Internet Archive anyway).
Apparently the court now considers it inconvenient for people to know who the motions panel judges are before making their motions.
Reply With Quote
  #1419  
Old 03-08-2021, 11:24 AM
cxr's Avatar
cxr cxr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 975
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
Update on this: I've been informed that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will no longer update that page, and will no longer make it known who the sitting motions panel is. I confirmed with them that this wasn't announced or notified anywhere. afaik that page has been up for at least ~12 years (going by Internet Archive anyway).
Lol guess someone reads Calguns
Reply With Quote
  #1420  
Old 03-08-2021, 11:55 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,413
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

All in the name of transparency
__________________
AW Reg. will likely be reopened summer '21 to those who weren't able to register by 7/18. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!
Reply With Quote
  #1421  
Old 03-08-2021, 4:06 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,323
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Is there any doubt, now, that Thomas is a sleazebag?

Or anyone left to admonish us not to insult sitting judges, lest they act like children and retaliate?

Hint: if you are a judge, and you retaliate like a child would, you do not deserve to be a judge.
__________________
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
  #1422  
Old 03-09-2021, 11:06 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nevada
Posts: 4,003
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Oh man, what a POS
Reply With Quote
  #1423  
Old 03-09-2021, 4:18 PM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 7,208
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page


NRA Memberships at Discounted fee
Reply With Quote
  #1424  
Old 03-13-2021, 11:58 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,323
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Is there any greater, more blatant, craven, cowardly admission that the 9th can be predicted entirely based on political alignment?

Mr. Thomas (I will refer to you as Mr. from now on), I'm addressing you directly.
__________________
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
  #1425  
Old 03-13-2021, 1:24 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,653
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Is there any greater, more blatant, craven, cowardly admission that the 9th can be predicted entirely based on political alignment?

Mr. Thomas (I will refer to you as Mr. from now on), I'm addressing you directly.

In fairness there are a couple very weak republicans in Bennett and Clifton. Other then that I agree.
Reply With Quote
  #1426  
Old 03-14-2021, 6:44 PM
sparky1979 sparky1979 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 154
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am betting ruling this week likely on Friday night.
Anyone else agree?

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #1427  
Old 03-14-2021, 8:40 PM
AbrahamBurden AbrahamBurden is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 556
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sparky1979 View Post
I am betting ruling this week likely on Friday night.
Anyone else agree?

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk
Would be awesome but the million dollar question is in the details. If again Benitez decides to reopen registration for an hour before Becerra bounces this to the 9th circuit then it's pretty useless.
Reply With Quote
  #1428  
Old 03-14-2021, 9:14 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,754
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sparky1979 View Post
I am betting ruling this week likely on Friday night.
Anyone else agree?

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk
I wonder if the DOJ has gotten the info to the judge yet, I think the due date was the 15th or before.
Reply With Quote
  #1429  
Old 03-14-2021, 9:59 PM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Danvile, California
Posts: 9,871
iTrader: 129 / 100%
Default

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this judge get immediately blocked by other judges whenever he makes a ruling?

Didn't he rule the ban on standard capacity magazines was unconstitional only to immediately get blocked by another judge?

Then the same thing happened with the ammo ban?

My understanding is another judge keeps putting an injunction on his rulings. Then no one takes up the case and the issue gets stuck in permanent limbo?

Am I oversimplifying? Seems like even though he rules pro-gun, it never lasts for more than a day before another judge spoils the party.
Reply With Quote
  #1430  
Old 03-14-2021, 10:07 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,754
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalcity View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this judge get immediately blocked by other judges whenever he makes a ruling?

Didn't he rule the ban on standard capacity magazines was unconstitional only to immediately get blocked by another judge?

Then the same thing happened with the ammo ban?

My understanding is another judge keeps putting an injunction on his rulings. Then no one takes up the case and the issue gets stuck in permanent limbo?

Am I oversimplifying? Seems like even though he rules pro-gun, it never lasts for more than a day before another judge spoils the party.

With the magazine ruling, he placed the stay himself, but after a week had passed. He may actually have placed the stay himself on the ammo ban also, but I seem to remember it was an emergency stay from the 9th. But the ammo one didn’t last too long, maybe a day or so.
Reply With Quote
  #1431  
Old 03-14-2021, 10:11 PM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Danvile, California
Posts: 9,871
iTrader: 129 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
With the magazine ruling, he placed the stay himself, but after a week had passed. He may actually have placed the stay himself on the ammo ban also, but I seem to remember it was an emergency stay from the 9th. But the ammo one didn’t last too long, maybe a day or so.
Does that mean a higher court will eventually look at those issues?

Last edited by tacticalcity; 03-16-2021 at 12:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1432  
Old 03-14-2021, 10:54 PM
AbrahamBurden AbrahamBurden is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 556
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalcity View Post
Does that mean a higher court will eventually look those issues?
Yes. In this case it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; you can check on this board on the progress of those cases. There's a sense of pessimism on how the 9th will rule on them because even after Trump swapping out leftoid judges for rightoid ones, the balance of judges on that court still leans anti-gun rather than pro-gun.
Reply With Quote
  #1433  
Old 03-15-2021, 5:39 AM
GetMeCoffee GetMeCoffee is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
With the magazine ruling, he placed the stay himself, but after a week had passed. He may actually have placed the stay himself on the ammo ban also, but I seem to remember it was an emergency stay from the 9th. But the ammo one didn’t last too long, maybe a day or so.
As I recall, Benitez denied the request to stay the ruling enjoining the ammo background check law (I assume you were referring to that). That allowed the state to request the emergency stay from the 9th.
__________________

Last edited by GetMeCoffee; 03-15-2021 at 7:00 AM.. Reason: Edited for clarity - again
Reply With Quote
  #1434  
Old 03-15-2021, 7:24 AM
Cartierusm Cartierusm is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm coming into this very, very late. The way it was explained to me and please correct me if I'm wrong. If the assault weapon laws in this case are over turned by the court, even by a few hours, if in those few hours you remove your bullet button/patriot button and leave all the evil features on your gun so that it's a real AR-15 again, then it gets grandfathered in so to speak. So if a stay happens after a few hours you have that time to covert your gun to it's original form. They would have to create new assault weapon type laws to re-ban that rifle you just changed back to it's original state. And those new assault weapon laws could not be written to reflect any of those old laws as they were deemed unconstitutional. Meaning they would have to come up with something completely new to ban that rifle again which would be nearly impossible.
Reply With Quote
  #1435  
Old 03-15-2021, 8:44 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,413
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartierusm View Post
I'm coming into this very, very late. The way it was explained to me and please correct me if I'm wrong. If the assault weapon laws in this case are over turned by the court, even by a few hours, if in those few hours you remove your bullet button/patriot button and leave all the evil features on your gun so that it's a real AR-15 again, then it gets grandfathered in so to speak. So if a stay happens after a few hours you have that time to covert your gun to it's original form. They would have to create new assault weapon type laws to re-ban that rifle you just changed back to it's original state. And those new assault weapon laws could not be written to reflect any of those old laws as they were deemed unconstitutional. Meaning they would have to come up with something completely new to ban that rifle again which would be nearly impossible.
From a couple pages earlier in the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
Here are some of the many possibilities of how a "Freedom Week" (Benitez overturns law, then issues a stay, effective some amount of time later) in this case hypothetically might play out:
  • The stay somehow includes a mandate that DOJ allow weapons acquired during Freedom Week to be registered.
  • He only stays the portion of his ruling that applies to the ban on acquisition (but not the ban on possession) of unregistered AWs while the appeal(s) play out in CA9.
  • He stays the entire ruling, and all AWs acquired during freedom week become illegal to possess immediately after Freedom Week, forcing owners of said weapons to disassemble them, reconfigure them to be legal, or be felons. This would be a bizarre choice for him to make, but it's still possible.
  • He issues a stay (of any sort), but the 9th circus orders another stay or injunction that overrides all or part of it.

Some other possibilities, outside of the "Freedom Week" possibilities above, could be:
  • He includes an immediate stay as part of his ruling, thus no freedom week.
  • He doesn't issue a stay at all, but the 9th Circus does.
  • Neither he nor the 9th Circus issue a stay, and we have a "Freedom Indeterminate-Amount-of-Time" until such time as the appeal gets decided. Incredibly unlikely, but theoretically possible.
  • His ruling doesn't even strike down the portion of the law that applies to the ban on acquisition, thus mooting this entire conversation and making us all very sad.
TLDR; there are many possible outcomes, and nobody can know how what will happen until it happens.
__________________
AW Reg. will likely be reopened summer '21 to those who weren't able to register by 7/18. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!
Reply With Quote
  #1436  
Old 03-15-2021, 8:44 AM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Different grid square
Posts: 1,526
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartierusm View Post
If the assault weapon laws in this case are over turned by the court, even by a few hours, if in those few hours you remove your bullet button/patriot button and leave all the evil features on your gun so that it's a real AR-15 again, then it gets grandfathered in so to speak. So if a stay happens after a few hours you have that time to covert your gun to it's original form. They would have to create new assault weapon type laws to re-ban that rifle you just changed back to it's original state.
Not accurate, no.

The reason that "Freedom Week" was a thing with the magazines was due to the fact that possession of magazines wasn't already regulated. Benitez said, "yeah, all of these magazine-ban laws are unconstitutional, not just these new ones criminalizing possession, but all of the old ones making sale, manufacture, and distribution too!" Suddenly it became legal to acquire them again, and so many folks did... once the enjoinder against enforcement of the existing laws was stayed (by Benitez at the behest of the 9th Circuit by request of the AG), the clock got reset to where it was right before the new laws (which DID criminalize possession) went into effect. Thus, possession is currently legal (as it was originally) but manufacture, acquisition and transfer are not legal (as it was originally); meaning that if you got your mags during "Freedom Week" you're protected from prosecution for possession because it was legal when you did it.

The difference here is that possession of an AW is already regulated. AWs must be registered in order to be legally possessed. Anything that you did to your rifle during an injunction and prior to a stay might be legal in that moment, but once the enjoiner was stayed, and everything returned to the previous condition while on appeal, then whatever you possessed would need to be registered in a condition which matched what the registry depicts, or you would be exposed to prosecution.

It's possible that Benitez could write something specific about the new BBAW regs, as they are a particularly nasty variety of BS, but I don't know how much focus was made of that particular clusterf**k in the course of the proceedings nor do we have any specific insight into what he is cooking up for this... our endgame is the challenge of the entire AW regulation system, so minutiae about the newest pile of crap legislation is maybe a bit off topic.

That's my reading anyway; there will be other opinions, but I would advise that you manage expectations appropriately here... the magazine injunction was a special case, there will not be something similar in the AW space.
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #1437  
Old 03-15-2021, 8:48 AM
Cartierusm Cartierusm is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ah gotcha. Thanks for the info.
Reply With Quote
  #1438  
Old 03-15-2021, 8:50 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,413
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

As with anything in life; Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

But also, plan for the best

If we get a "Freedom week", or a "Freedom Day", or a "Freedom 7 Minutes", you don't want to be caught with your pants down, being the guy who's frantically checking the marketplace for the parts you need.
__________________
AW Reg. will likely be reopened summer '21 to those who weren't able to register by 7/18. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!
Reply With Quote
  #1439  
Old 03-15-2021, 8:54 AM
Cartierusm Cartierusm is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hmm so I could order some new lowers and that would qualify?

Also, I'm not clear on something. I understand that any rifles that I have already that are legal with the patriot button thingy won't magically become legal during a new expected freedom week, but as said previously new acquisitions would be. I take this to mean any new guns purchased during freedom week, but that new rifle would still fall under the same law that makes my already owned gun illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #1440  
Old 03-15-2021, 9:04 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,413
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartierusm View Post
Hmm so I could order some new lowers and that would qualify?
If you're short on lowers, then sure.

But I'm thinking more along the lines of normal grips, normal mag releases, normal stocks, normal flash hiders, etc... whatever you haven't been allowed to put on your favorite semiauto firearms the last few years, it would be good to have that stuff already ready to go, in case the best case scenario happens. Don't rely on being able to find those parts at your LGS during that potentially-very-short window of opportunity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartierusm View Post
Also, I'm not clear on something. I understand that any rifles that I have already that are legal with the patriot button thingy won't magically become legal during a new expected freedom week, but as said previously new acquisitions would be. I take this to mean any new guns purchased during freedom week, but that new rifle would still fall under the same law that makes my already owned gun illegal.
I'm not clear on your question. "Acquire" means to "buy" OR to "make" OR to "modify from something you already own". There would be no distinction, legally speaking, betweeen something you bought during a hypothetical freedom week, or something you made during that week, or a weapon you already owned but modified during that week.

In any case, you're thinking too hard about this - the fact is, we really don't know, because most of the answers you're looking for will be contained in the Court's order and/or subsequent stays, none of which hasn't been written yet. So it's all just speculation at this point, and it's entirely possible that there won't be any "freedom week" at all, rendering this whole hypothetical conversation pointless.
__________________
AW Reg. will likely be reopened summer '21 to those who weren't able to register by 7/18. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!

Last edited by CandG; 03-15-2021 at 9:14 AM..
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 11:31 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.