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
  #1  
Old 04-04-2020, 11:16 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Turner's Operations v. Garcetti, LA Superior Court - Gun store closures

A gun rights group is suing the city of Los Angeles, arguing that an order that shuttered stores that sell firearms during the COVID-19 pandemic is unconstitutional and preempted by state law.

The lawsuit, whose plaintiffs include the California Rifle & Pistol Assn. and stores selling firearms in the San Fernando Valley, states that although Mayor Eric Garcetti did not expressly name gun stores in his written order, both Garcetti and City Atty. Mike Feuer have stated that they must close and the police department has ordered them to shut down.

The rifle group argues that the move defies a state order allowing workers from “critical infrastructure sectors” to continue working. In addition, the plaintiffs contend that the L.A. order violates the California state constitution by depriving licensed dealers of the ability to operate without “due process of law” and keeping buyers from their “lawfully purchased property.”

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...n-rights-group

Complaint: https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/c.../riflesuit.pdf

Last edited by FirearmFino; 04-05-2020 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-04-2020, 2:25 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

AFAIK there is literally only one gun store left in the city of Los Angeles
__________________
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
  #3  
Old 04-04-2020, 2:35 PM
M76's Avatar
M76 M76 is offline
Git-R-Done
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Git-R-Done City
Posts: 5,152
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunndeal View Post
Stop digging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrassCase View Post
I only buy fireworks from Three Finger Willie over at One Eyed Jack's Fireworks.
iTrader

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1884858
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-04-2020, 3:23 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Free State
Posts: 368
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
AFAIK there is literally only one gun store left in the city of Los Angeles


In the paperwork for the other lawsuit, an LA gun unit detective I believe said 18.
__________________
My Adventures
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-04-2020, 6:35 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 nikonmike5 View Post
In the paperwork for the other lawsuit, an LA gun unit detective I believe said 18.
LA city FFLs maybe. The only B&M store i know of in the city of LA is Turners in Reseda.

I could be wrong.
__________________
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
  #6  
Old 04-04-2020, 8:20 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Free State
Posts: 368
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Very possible you’re right.
__________________
My Adventures
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-05-2020, 11:47 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The complaint
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-05-2020, 12:11 PM
PaperTarget's Avatar
PaperTarget PaperTarget is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 786
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Looks like a winner.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-05-2020, 1:46 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Free State
Posts: 368
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the link. Looks like this is in state court.
__________________
My Adventures
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-05-2020, 2:40 PM
wolfmann wolfmann is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SO KALI mountains
Posts: 466
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks for the info.
I say keep throwing chit at them and some of it will eventually stick.
Overwhelm them.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-10-2020, 6:09 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Michel Lawyers Page

Ex Parte Application to Stay Enforcement of Los Angeles Order Requiring Licensed Firearm Dealers to Close or Alternatively, for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Ex Parte Application to Stay Enforcement of Los Angeles Order Requiring Licensed Firearm Dealers to Close or Alternatively, for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause

Declaration of Sean A. Brady in Support of Ex Parte Application to Stay Enforcement of Los Angeles Order Requiring Licensed Firearm Dealers to Close or Alternatively, for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause

Declaration of Bill Ortiz in Support of Ex Parte Application to Stay Enforcement of Los Angeles Order Requiring Licensed Firearm Dealers to Close or Alternatively, for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause

Declaration of Diane Taylor in Support of Ex Parte Application to Stay Enforcement of Los Angeles Order Requiring Licensed Firearm Dealers to Close or Alternatively, for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause

Declaration of Mike Barranco in Support of Ex Parte Application to Stay Enforcement of Los Angeles Order Requiring Licensed Firearm Dealers to Close or Alternatively, for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause

Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Ex Parte Application to Stay Enforcement of Los Angeles Order Requiring Licensed Firearm Dealers to Close or Alternatively, for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-14-2020, 5:59 PM
ngnrnlo ngnrnlo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 248
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

At today’s L.A. mayor covid briefing, city attorney feuer stated that today they successfully warded off a legal challenge to the non-essential status of gun stores. I presume he was referring to this case. Does anyone have additional information or updates?

Last edited by ngnrnlo; 04-14-2020 at 6:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-14-2020, 6:16 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,607
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The press release has been posted by the City Attorney’s office. I’m not going to link to it. The Request for Temporary Restraining Order has been denied.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-14-2020, 6:18 PM
sfe187 sfe187 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,772
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

Is the Mayor speaking for entire LA County? isn't he just an LA City Mayor? The only LA City gun shop i know of is Turner's Reseda, I have no idea how many home based FFL in LA city.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-15-2020, 9:37 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 448
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This is City of L.A.

So at this point multiple judges have decided that it is ok to deny the right to self defense, ESPECIALLY since the only legal way to purchase ammunition is at a gun store.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfe187 View Post
Is the Mayor speaking for entire LA County? isn't he just an LA City Mayor? The only LA City gun shop i know of is Turner's Reseda, I have no idea how many home based FFL in LA city.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-15-2020, 7:13 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does anyone have a copy of the order?
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-15-2020, 9:01 PM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 774
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

It's really disheartening to see these. It infuriates me. Our founding fathers would have risen up in arms. But these days...that would never be allowed to hold those accountable.
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
USMC OEF Veteran
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-16-2020, 6:36 AM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 4,169
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

"Public Safety" is the bludgeon that the Marxists use to negate the Bill of Rights, in their mind "Public Safety" is the catchall for suspending the Bill of Rights when ever they feel like it, an honest Court would stop this nonsense as we might as well reestablish the British Monarchy in the former Colonies. If they taught real American History in our schools, every citizen would standup and demand the Bill of Rights be held to Strict Scrutiny.





Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
This is City of L.A.

So at this point multiple judges have decided that it is ok to deny the right to self defense, ESPECIALLY since the only legal way to purchase ammunition is at a gun store.
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Last edited by Californio; 04-16-2020 at 12:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-16-2020, 6:48 AM
Helpful_Cub's Avatar
Helpful_Cub Helpful_Cub is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Antelope Valley, CA
Posts: 1,459
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
"Public Safety" is the bludgeon that the Marxists use to negate the Bill of Rights, in their mind "Public Safety" is the catchall for suspending the Bill of Rights when ever they feel like it, an honest Court would stop this nonsense as we might as well reestablish the British Monarchy is the former Colonies. If they taught real American History in our schools, every citizen would standup and demand the Bill of Rights be held to Strict Scrutiny.
No. They would demand it be followed. We've departed so far from its intent it's lost any of its meaning. We honestly don't have a bases of government now. But maybe that's the point.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-16-2020, 8:15 AM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,319
iTrader: 94 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helpful_Cub View Post
No. They would demand it be followed. We've departed so far from its intent it's lost any of its meaning. We honestly don't have a bases of government now. But maybe that's the point.
Agree 100%.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-16-2020, 9:39 AM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,086
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
"Public Safety" is the bludgeon that the Marxists use to negate the Bill of Rights, in their mind "Public Safety" is the catchall for suspending the Bill of Rights when ever they feel like it, an honest Court would stop this nonsense as we might as well reestablish the British Monarchy is the former Colonies. If they taught real American History in our schools, every citizen would standup and demand the Bill of Rights be held to Strict Scrutiny.
Yes and no. The concept of "Strict Scrutiny" is a completely extra-constitutional bit of thinking with no particular meaning. It is an invention put in place to avoid the direct interpretation of the wording of the constitution. Where did it come from? A WWII decision on race-based interment. What caused the need for it? The various "Slaughterhouse Cases" in the post-CW era, which sought to ignore the direct and obvious meaning of the 14th. Again, a race-based pile of crap.

If we can invent the concept of "Strict Scrutiny" and call it the law of the land, perhaps we can invent another form of interpretation. Somebody else here proposed an amendment to the 2nd: add "under penalty of death" to it.
Call it "we really mean it" scrutiny.

Heller directly addresses this early on in the text of the discussion. Scalia certainly knew that "strict scrutiny" was a bunch of extra-constitutional nonsense made up as a wartime expedient, but did not want to collapse that whole house of cards. Too much work. So he made it clear that no level of scrutiny was required for the decision. Which is obvious, but apparently needed to be stated.

This theme of stating the obvious has continued. The McDonald and Caetano cases reflect on this theme. As do the Raisin Board cases. It is my expectation that the forthcoming resolution to the clot of 2nd cases in the court will proceed by restating the obvious and clear meaning and reasoning of the 2nd. The gun grabbers will flip out -- of course. But the ruling will
follow another theme and make it clear that if the plain meaning of the text can be argued and swept away by fancy logic, then the same applies for the emanations and penumbras. There will be a thinly veiled warning about abortion (and lots of other tenuous "rights") in the rulings that are coming.

We can only hope so.
__________________
What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-16-2020, 1:17 PM
Greyhues Greyhues is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am afraid we as a people talk a lot but are not being heard. I am thinking we should be persuing this possibly through the US DOJ? Then after everything is exhausted....

Right now we are a bunch of fools )myself included) asking our masters to rule for us so we can protect ourselves. It is ridiculous
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-16-2020, 2:13 PM
Bt Doctur Bt Doctur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 471
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Then I guess it over the borders for you people . Only other way to get what you need
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-24-2020, 4:20 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:
A gun rights group is suing the city of Los Angeles, arguing that an order that shuttered stores that sell firearms during the COVID-19 pandemic is unconstitutional and preempted by state law.
I find it rather "selective" that Turdner's is filing suit because they are having their constitutional rights infringed. And that Garcetti is doing so in conflict of, and is doing so by breaking state preemptive laws.

Boo F'n Hoo for Turdner's.

When they are open for business. They have absofreak'nlutely no problem doing exactly the same thing to their customers who have the ill fortune to be listed as "undetermined status" by DOJ. By illegally refusing to complete transfers, as mandated in Ca PC-28220[f][4].

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 1:24 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