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
  #41  
Old 04-06-2020, 4:53 AM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 167
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
There does not appear to be a statewide order in effect for firearms and ammunition. Newsome has generally been precise in his public statements-often being careful to frame things as strong recommendations rather than “orders.” That could get the state excused from the lawsuit.
That is Newsom and Democrats nationwide being slimy to avoid accountability, and trying to frustrate the inevitable legal challenges in the courts. It's also why there are five or eight cases pending against them. It was an intentional decision to feign ignorance of responsibility. Look up the infamous "58 District Attourneys" letter from the Off List Lower days for another example where they intentionally tried to fragment accountability by "leaving it up to the Sheriffs" to decide if the Bill of Rights (or Department of Homeland Security findings) applies in their county.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=32967
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ibits-Q-Y1.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20071019...ters060220.PDF

Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklisted View Post
December 2005

... throughout the entire month of December (and later), the Department was calling and intimidating out of state manufacturers, suppliers, and dealers. They were given ominous warnings (over the phone, rarely in writing) about California's 58 district attorneys, and some were allegedly lied to. It is not clear whether it was agents, desk clerks, or attorneys that made these calls. Whether they were lied to or not, the strategy worked. Soon, it seemed that nobody wanted to deal with us. Even some dealers here were convinced that we were all going to jail.
Quote:
DOJ FFL Advisory Notice

(Although OLL have been found by law and the courts to be legal to sell in California) There are 58 district attorneys in California's 58 counties. They could (individually) elect to prosecute you for a felony.
This is extremely familiar in terms of tactics, unfamiliar in how it is being applied in a time under emergency powers. But as far as I am aware, the Bill of Rights doesn't cease to exist in bad times. I wish the government disenfranchising people of their rights through the implied use of force would be a crime, such as with the 58 DAs letter... or failing to protect them through the ambiguous affirmation of rights, such as Newsom now.

Last edited by Citizen One; 04-06-2020 at 5:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-06-2020, 1:25 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-06-2020, 2:43 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Free State
Posts: 368
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So as figured state is not part of this per judge. Additionally court thinks under intermediate scrutiny it’s reasonable. It’s not strict scrutiny because they’re not coming after your guns...
__________________
My Adventures
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-06-2020, 2:59 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:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
So as figured state is not part of this per judge. Additionally court thinks under intermediate scrutiny it’s reasonable. It’s not strict scrutiny because they’re not coming after your guns...
So according to the Obama appointee. It's OK to petty autocrats to deny your "2A RIGHT TO PURCHASE" a firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-06-2020, 8:55 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 pacrat View Post
So according to the Obama appointee. It's OK to petty autocrats to deny your "2A RIGHT TO PURCHASE" a firearm.


Yes, because those who own them are not impacted (their logic).

Remember though this was for a TRO. Lawsuit will go on, just won’t be ruled on anytime soon.
__________________
My Adventures
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-07-2020, 9:45 AM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 305
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Heller Two-Stepped again. That NY SCOTUS ruling can't come out soon enough.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-08-2020, 2:59 PM
WingDings's Avatar
WingDings WingDings is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: California
Posts: 1,244
iTrader: 153 / 100%
Default

https://freebeacon.com/courts/second...tore-closures/

Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-05-2021, 5:47 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Appellants' Opening Brief

Appellees' Answering Brief

FPC case page
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-19-2021, 7:59 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oral argument video

Panel: Kleinfeld, R. Nelson, VanDyke
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-21-2021, 7:44 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Oral argument video

Panel: Kleinfeld, R. Nelson, VanDyke
Defense got clobbered
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-20-2022, 11:48 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Opinion

Quote:
On the merits, the Los Angeles County Orders (Orders) both burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment and fail strict and intermediate scrutiny.
McDougall v. Ventura County opinion

Quote:
The Orders therefore wholly prevented law-abiding citizens in the County from realizing their right to keep and bear arms, both by prohibiting access to acquiring any firearm and ammunition, and barring practice at firing ranges with any firearms already owned. These blanket prohibitions on access and practice clearly burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment and fail under both strict and intermediate scrutiny. We therefore reverse and remand to the district court.

Last edited by FirearmFino; 01-20-2022 at 11:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-21-2022, 5:16 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,491
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
Judge Van Dyke's concurring opinion, where he predicts what will happen en banc, is pretty funny. Well worth the read.
It's amusing, but also kinda disheartening, yet gratifying...

Quote:
I agree wholeheartedly with the majority opinion, which is not terribly surprising since I wrote it. But I write separately to make two additional points. The first is simply to predict what happens next. I’m not a prophet, but since this panel just enforced the Second Amendment, and this is the Ninth Circuit, this ruling will almost certainly face an en banc challenge. This prediction follows from the fact that this is always what happens when a three-judge panel upholds the Second Amendment in this circuit... Our circuit has ruled on dozens of Second Amendment cases, and without fail has ultimately blessed every gun regulation challenged, so we shouldn’t expect anything less here...

...The complex weave of multi-prong analyses embedded into this framework provide numerous off-ramps for judges to uphold any gun-regulation in question without hardly breaking a sweat...

...Since our court’s Second Amendment intermediate scrutiny standard can reach any result one desires, I figure there is no reason why I shouldn’t write an alternative draft opinion that will apply our test in a way more to the liking of the majority of our court. That way I can demonstrate just how easy it is to reach any desired conclusion under our current framework, and the majority of our court can get a jumpstart on calling this case en banc...
I see this as something akin to what Benetiz has been doing; i.e., highlighting the absurdity of what the 9th Circuit has been doing in relation to decisions on the 2nd Amendment. Amusing? Yes. Disheartening? Sure, that it is even viewed as 'necessary.' Gratifying? From the perspective that someone is putting it on the record and that someone has official weight.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-21-2022, 6:35 AM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
Former cabinetguy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a cage at the San Diego Zoo
Posts: 34,329
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonelar View Post
My hope is that LA residents remember this come election time. That sheriff has got tongo.

I don’t know that it was his call, given Villanueva's preformance on LTC issuance, he seems fairly pro AII.

JMTC
__________________
We’re ALL GOING TO DIE!

Can’t somebody do something?!?!?!?!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-21-2022, 3:58 PM
lairdb lairdb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 157
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
Judge Van Dyke's concurring opinion, where he predicts what will happen en banc, is pretty funny. Well worth the read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It's amusing, but also kinda disheartening, yet gratifying...

I see this as something akin to what Benetiz has been doing; i.e., highlighting the absurdity of what the 9th Circuit has been doing in relation to decisions on the 2nd Amendment.
I dropped in to make sure this had been noticed -- this is some of the funniest stuff I've read in years. This is P.G. Wodehouse levels of funny in places. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...0/20-56220.pdf; Vandyke's concurrence starts on page 46 with this joyful opening:
Quote:
I agree wholeheartedly with the majority opinion, which is not terribly surprising since I wrote it.
Quote:
The complex weave of multi-prong analyses embedded into this framework provide numerous off-ramps for judges to uphold any gun-regulation in question without hardly breaking a sweat.
(Writing in the voice of the expected en banc judges: )
Quote:
We really like this “not unlimited” language from Heller, and cite it often and enthusiastically.
Quote:
Here’s the deal: Whenever we think the history helps us in upholding the challenged regulation, we’re happy to rely on it in step one of our test. [...] But most of the time the history either doesn’t help us uphold the gun regulation, is indeterminate, or is just really hard to evaluate. [...] But that’s okay, because the real beauty of our two-step test is its amazing flexibility at the various stages of step two in balancing the government’s asserted interest versus the claimed impact on the “core” of the Second Amendment.
Quote:
I know this sounds a lot like rational basis review. After all, if a government interest would be “achieved [more] effectively absent the [challenged] regulation,” it’s hard to see how that regulation would survive even rational basis scrutiny. But trust us, this is heightened scrutiny. So very heightened.


__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-21-2022, 8:41 PM
librarian72 librarian72 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Utterly squandered.

My prediction, no en-banc. The "emergency" is past and they'll let this go specifically to pull teeth on the anti-2A argument. Of course, given half the chance they will jump through hoops when the next emergency pops up to do whatever they want.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
US Circuit Courts of Appeal have no deadlines; they work on what they want, when they want. The 9th also seems sometimes to Make Stuff Up in their opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-28-2022, 3:05 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Motion for A 14-day Extension of Time for Filing Petition for Rehearing or, in the Alternative, Rehearing En Banc
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-08-2022, 9:54 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

McDougall v. County of Ventura:

Filed Order for PUBLICATION (MARY H. MURGUIA) Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion is vacated.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-08-2022, 10:00 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default McDougall, et al. v. County of Ventura, CA, et al.

The case involving covid lockdowns of gun stores has just been ordered en banc. The panel decision declaring the gun store shutdowns as violations of the second amendment is vacated. This was the case where Judge VanDyke famously wrote the 9th’s en banc decision for them ahead of time.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1646764454


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-08-2022, 11:47 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
The case involving covid lockdowns of gun stores has just been ordered en banc. The panel decision declaring the gun store shutdowns as violations of the second amendment is vacated. This was the case where Judge VanDyke famously wrote the 9th’s en banc decision for them ahead of time.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1646764454



Yeah, it's very predictable at this point. I wonder if the democrate judges know how predictable they are.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-08-2022, 1:00 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
The case involving covid lockdowns of gun stores has just been ordered en banc. The panel decision declaring the gun store shutdowns as violations of the second amendment is vacated. This was the case where Judge VanDyke famously wrote the 9th’s en banc decision for them ahead of time.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1646764454


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They probably granted en banc just to tell Judge Van Dyke how wrong he is about their method of review. Just too "insulting" to let it stand, even if it is true.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 05-11-2022, 5:11 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

McDougall v. Ventura County: Oral argument in this en banc case will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 22, 2022, in Courtroom Three of the Richard H. Chambers Courthouse, located at 125 South Grand Avenue in Pasadena, CA 91105.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-14-2022, 9:20 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
McDougall v. Ventura County: Oral argument in this en banc case will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 22, 2022
Is CA9 still going ahead with en banc orals on this date despite the imminent release of a major SCOTUS 2A opinion in NYSRPA?


Last edited by Paladin; 05-14-2022 at 9:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-14-2022, 3:03 PM
johncage johncage is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 993
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Yeah, it's very predictable at this point. I wonder if the democrate judges know how predictable they are.
>democrats

>self awareness

pick one.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-22-2022, 8:59 PM
johnireland johnireland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 273
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If the courts were going to defend the Second Amendment it would have happened at least fifty years ago. That it hasn't happened is proof that it will not happen in the future. Not until America is partitioned into two separate countries, will the courts, as described in the Constitution, be a place where citizens can seek justice, and get it. A study of the corruption of the courts and the legal system over the last 50 to 60 years is just another page in the leftwing assault on ever part of the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-23-2022, 1:39 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Is CA9 still going ahead with en banc orals on this date despite the imminent release of a major SCOTUS 2A opinion in NYSRPA?

I would not be surprised if oral argument was taken off calendar and rescheduled if Bruen is decided before then in order to allow further briefing as to the standard of review.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-17-2022, 2:27 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I would not be surprised if oral argument was taken off calendar and rescheduled if Bruen is decided before then in order to allow further briefing as to the standard of review.
From a source involved….

Quote:
Btw the gun closure panel has been announced https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calenda...gs/106962.html

2022-06-22 10:00 am Courtroom 3, Richard H. Chambers US Court of Appeals, Pasadena - En Banc

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, HURWITZ, FRIEDLAND, R. NELSON, MILLER, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges

Case No. Title Nature Origin Time / Side
20-56220 Kelly McDougall v. County of Ventura - An appeal from the dismissal of an action challenging Ventura County's COVID-19 public health orders mandating, in 2020, a 48-day closure of gun shops, ammunition shops, and firing ranges. [2:20-cv-02927-CBM-AS] Civil C. CA 30 min
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-17-2022, 8:55 PM
librarian72 librarian72 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Murguia, appointed by Obama
Kleinfeld, by H.W. Bush
McKeown, by Clinton
Callahan, by Bush
Nguyen, by Obama
Hurwitz, by Obama
Friedland, by Obama
R. Nelson, by Trump
Miller, by Trump
Sanchez, by Biden
H. Thomas, by Biden

1 H.W. Bush
1 Clinton
1 Bush
3 Obama
2 Trump
2 Biden

(R) 4
(D) 6
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
US Circuit Courts of Appeal have no deadlines; they work on what they want, when they want. The 9th also seems sometimes to Make Stuff Up in their opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-20-2022, 1:05 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by librarian72 View Post
Murguia, appointed by Obama
Kleinfeld, by H.W. Bush
McKeown, by Clinton
Callahan, by Bush
Nguyen, by Obama
Hurwitz, by Obama
Friedland, by Obama
R. Nelson, by Trump
Miller, by Trump
Sanchez, by Biden
H. Thomas, by Biden

1 H.W. Bush
1 Clinton
1 Bush
3 Obama
2 Trump
2 Biden

(R) 4
(D) 6
Make that 4 Obama. There are 11 judges on the panel. And old Sidney Thomas, who has taken senior status, is on there. I think that we can see which way this is going to go, absent the Supremes imposing a very strict standard of review.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-22-2022, 7:55 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Are en banc orals being live streamed on YouTube today? Link?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-22-2022, 12:25 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Villanueva could improve his election chances by simply agreeing that the restrictions got out of hand and not defending this vigorously.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-22-2022, 12:34 PM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: OC
Posts: 6,393
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
Villanueva could improve his election chances by simply agreeing that the restrictions got out of hand and not defending this vigorously.
But but… he’s issuing CCWs

We should kneel before thee
__________________
Freedom isn't free...



iTrader
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06-22-2022, 5:15 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Next opportunity...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC View Post
But but… he’s issuing CCWs
He's slightly ahead in the polls. It will be interesting to see how he responds to the NYSRPA decision when issued.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-22-2022, 9:43 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oral argument video
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-29-2022, 12:21 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Sent back to District Court: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status...33471602593795
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 06-30-2022, 7:39 PM
mikeshan mikeshan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 100
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Why Shut Down Gun Stores?

Was a reason given for the need to close gun stores?
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 1:52 AM.




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