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
  #81  
Old 12-31-2018, 7:57 PM
Markinsac's Avatar
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 986
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well, they certainly are in "denial".
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-31-2018, 8:38 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This looks like a standard 'form' denial of everything.

Nothing worth a mention. Blah, blah, blah.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-01-2019, 10:51 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,150
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
This looks like a standard 'form' denial of everything.

Nothing worth a mention. Blah, blah, blah.
Yeah that didn't take long to read...
__________________
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024

Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-21-2019, 1:51 PM
painkiller's Avatar
painkiller painkiller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Central Valley heat
Posts: 870
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

This is funny.17 pages of denial
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-03-2019, 8:20 AM
donsthebomb donsthebomb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Neiboring states

Has Arizona, Nevada or Oregon enacted any laws that require it's citizens to prove they live in the state at the time they purchase ammunition?

It seems to me that this would be a prerequisite when requiring California residents to register to buy ammunition.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 04-01-2019, 1:28 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

While not related, Judge Benitez's judgement/order in the magazine case gives me hope there will be a similar outcome in this case. Personally, a MSJ can't come quick enough. Prop 63 isn't looking too good for the anti-2A crowd.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 04-01-2019, 1:41 PM
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beyond the reach...
Posts: 4,227
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Oh yea..... totally forgot that this is also before Benitez. Bacerra has got to be pissed that both of these Prop 65 boondoggles are in front of Benitez. He is going to tear through them again. When can we get an AWCA case in front of him?
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 04-01-2019, 2:25 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,953
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Oh yea..... totally forgot that this is also before Benitez. Bacerra has got to be pissed that both of these Prop 65 boondoggles are in front of Benitez. He is going to tear through them again. When can we get an AWCA case in front of him?
Smile of the Day
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 04-01-2019, 2:30 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,334
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Oh yea..... totally forgot that this is also before Benitez. Bacerra has got to be pissed that both of these Prop 65 boondoggles are in front of Benitez. He is going to tear through them again. When can we get an AWCA case in front of him?
Wait, what?! Oh, there is hope..
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 04-01-2019, 2:47 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,845
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by donsthebomb View Post
Has Arizona, Nevada or Oregon enacted any laws that require it's citizens to prove they live in the state at the time they purchase ammunition?

It seems to me that this would be a prerequisite when requiring California residents to register to buy ammunition.
As I understand it, California residents do not have to register to buy ammo under Prop 63, but they do have to show proof of residence if they only want to pay$1 for the mandatory check against the APPS database. Otherwise it is $19 for a DOJ check--and which means (I am guessing) a waiting period to pick it up??? After all, the DOJ proclaimed loudly that it cannot process most purchase background checks in three days, but must have 10.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 04-01-2019, 5:27 PM
WoodTurner's Avatar
WoodTurner WoodTurner is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North County SD
Posts: 278
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Oh yea..... totally forgot that this is also before Benitez. Bacerra has got to be pissed that both of these Prop 65 boondoggles are in front of Benitez. He is going to tear through them again. When can we get an AWCA case in front of him?
This makes me really happy.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 04-02-2019, 4:21 PM
ARFrog's Avatar
ARFrog ARFrog is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Northern Calif - East Bay area
Posts: 1,240
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

This may be "outside the box" but after 7/1/2019, if the current law is enacted, could/would all CA COE holders have any standing against the State for double taxation/fees? The COE indicates that one is eligible to receive certain types of firearms and is already predicated on a background check. If the COE holder is "approved" by the State to receive firearm(s) (without designated waiting periods necessary in other transactions), why do they need separate approval and payment of on-going additional background fees to receive ammo?

If under the high capacity magazine judge's thought process a magazine is an "arm", why wouldn't ammunition be also an "arm" in this context?

Just wondering.....
__________________


ARFrog

Last edited by ARFrog; 04-02-2019 at 4:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 04-02-2019, 4:40 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
As I understand it, California residents do not have to register to buy ammo under Prop 63, but they do have to show proof of residence if they only want to pay$1 for the mandatory check against the APPS database. Otherwise it is $19 for a DOJ check--and which means (I am guessing) a waiting period to pick it up??? After all, the DOJ proclaimed loudly that it cannot process most purchase background checks in three days, but must have 10.
Isn't the $1 fee for the search against the AFS database? If so, then you have to have previously purchased a firearm to be listed in the AFS database. And presumably the proof of residence will need to match up against what is in AFS. Otherwise, it is time for the $19 fee.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 04-02-2019, 4:47 PM
Non Political Californian Non Political Californian is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 234
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Isn't the $1 fee for the search against the AFS database? If so, then you have to have previously purchased a firearm to be listed in the AFS database. And presumably the proof of residence will need to match up against what is in AFS. Otherwise, it is time for the $19 fee.
The agenda is to harmonize gun controls globally.
The next phase would be limiting purchases to calibers you have registered
Restricting purchases of all reloading supplies
Placing limits on amount of ammunition that can be purchased
Further restricting who is allowed to own what and for what valid purposes and how it may be stored
Further complicating the process of acquiring permits and creating a culture of compliance and privilege that encourages snitching.
If you look globally, that's just the trend they are attempting to force.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 04-02-2019, 4:49 PM
boltstop's Avatar
boltstop boltstop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 891
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I don’t think this as clear cut as the magazine ban.

The state isn’t saying you can’t have ammunition nor is it limiting the quantity - indeed you can even mailorder as much as you want as often as you want - you just have to have the transaction processed through a licensed ammunition vendor.

We can hope that the law will be invalidated but i think it’s a tougher climb.

Now, the roster on the other hand ..........
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 04-02-2019, 5:50 PM
vincnet11 vincnet11 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 505
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does this case repeal the face to face transaction law for online sales?
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 04-02-2019, 6:14 PM
Non Political Californian Non Political Californian is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 234
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boltstop View Post
I don’t think this as clear cut as the magazine ban.

The state isn’t saying you can’t have ammunition nor is it limiting the quantity - indeed you can even mailorder as much as you want as often as you want - you just have to have the transaction processed through a licensed ammunition vendor.

We can hope that the law will be invalidated but i think it’s a tougher climb.

Now, the roster on the other hand ..........
It's always incremental, that's the plan they have followed, and it's why you never compromise with them on anything ever.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 04-02-2019, 6:21 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 718
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vincnet11 View Post
Does this case repeal the face to face transaction law for online sales?
It seeks to. That is one of the remedies asked for.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 04-02-2019, 7:28 PM
DB> DB> is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 772
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Following Benitez' logic, ammunition is ALSO protected by the 2A, as a gun without ammunition is rather useless.

Since the average gun owner will buy many many rounds over time, the requirement that they pay a substantial "tax" (practically and proportionally) each time they purchase is unduly restrictive (particularly on poorer members of society). This requirement is clearly regressive and punitive against those most likely to NEED to defend themselves. Leftists should be outraged at this bias against poor folk!

I'm sure the argument is that by regulating access to ammo, "gun violence" can be reduced. In practical fact, it likely means that anyone able to will buy larger quantities than they otherwise might, so as to reduce the relative "tax burden". So the law actually does the EXACT OPPOSITE of it's intent.

Many of the "touchy feely/feelgood" laws are so poorly conceived as to be nothing but, as Judge Benitez so perceptively pointed out, an "experiment", consisting of throwing stuff out there, and see if anything "sticks". Of course that does not make good public policy, or make anyone actually safer.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 04-02-2019, 8:53 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,845
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So a $1 tax on as many rounds as you want to buy at one time is too much?
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 04-02-2019, 8:53 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,334
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Not sure if this was brought up but it may not be a "burden" to those who live in or really near a city with lots of FFLs but for those who live in rural areas, it's a burden. Online sales are the only option.
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 04-02-2019, 8:54 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 718
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Believe it or not, the Ninth Circuit has already confirmed that acquisition of ammunition is protected under the Second Amendment in another one of our cases, Jackson v. San Francisco.

For those craving more of Judge Benitez's opinions, the one in this case mostly denying California's motion to dismiss should be satisfying. It does not address the Second Amendment claim. But is still well written and reasoned.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 04-02-2019, 8:59 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
So a $1 tax on as many rounds as you want to buy at one time is too much?
CA-DoJ wouldn't see it as a tax. I imagine they would claim it as a 'fee' for implementing the system to perform the automated checking of the AFS database. Kind of like 'fee for service'....

Separately, isn't there a limit on how many rounds can be purchased at one time? Something like 300? Wasn't that one of Kim Rhode's objections, since she routinely goes through 2 or more flats (250 shells/flat) of shells per day she is practicing?
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 04-03-2019, 7:18 AM
everyday_hero everyday_hero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 95
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Heard it, read it, the max was 500 rounds. Restricted bulk. Government social experiment. Pretty restrictive if it means 500>= when it comes to multiple calibers, practice, & self defense. Eliminates stock piling.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 04-03-2019, 7:30 AM
everyday_hero everyday_hero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 95
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

<=500
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 04-03-2019, 8:39 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

I find it telling that a man born in an authoritarian Communist County, does understand what the Republic and its Liberty is all about and these carpetbagger EuroTrash don't have a clue.

My own 5th Great Grandfather was arrested in Scotland, banished to the East Jersey Colony and sold into servitude by the British Crown, his crime, Presbyterians believed in separation between church and state and would not bow before the State Religion of the authoritarian Monarchy. His grandson got the last laugh in the American Revolution.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Believe it or not, the Ninth Circuit has already confirmed that acquisition of ammunition is protected under the Second Amendment in another one of our cases, Jackson v. San Francisco.

For those craving more of Judge Benitez's opinions, the one in this case mostly denying California's motion to dismiss should be satisfying. It does not address the Second Amendment claim. But is still well written and reasoned.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 04-03-2019, 8:54 AM
Non Political Californian Non Political Californian is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 234
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by everyday_hero View Post
Heard it, read it, the max was 500 rounds. Restricted bulk. Government social experiment. Pretty restrictive if it means 500>= when it comes to multiple calibers, practice, & self defense. Eliminates stock piling.
Like I said, this is all an agenda, it is a conspiracy and it is out in the open for anyone to look at.

http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/0310-en.pdf
http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/0330-en.pdf
http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/0410-en.pdf
http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/0430-en.pdf

http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/

Everything they are doing, everything they are proposing is all laid out, the campaigns they are running, the tactics they are using. All of it.

Never surrender a damn thing to this globalist scum.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 04-03-2019, 9:52 AM
scarbubu scarbubu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 46
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Its no coincidence that 1st generation immigrants from parts of the world with oppressive authoritarian regimes are some of the staunchest supporters of 2a.

gun grabbing leads to totalitarianism at best, and we've all seen the worst.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 04-03-2019, 10:46 AM
sky00high sky00high is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 94
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

I just became a member in CPRA. I just feel I really need to show my appreciation for their work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 04-03-2019, 10:57 AM
TPMArms's Avatar
TPMArms TPMArms is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: 246 Denny Way, El Cajon CA 92020, 619-749-2700
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Is ammo a part of the 2nd ammendment

It seems to me the state is arguing both sides of this depending on what is convenient. The state argues that ammo is necessary to make a firearm function, and as such the ability to require a background check is legally enforceable. And on the opposite side, arguing that the ability to travel with a firearm/ammo from one state to another is not protected because ammo is not part of a firearm and does not enjoy the same protection..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 04-03-2019, 11:44 AM
sonofeugene's Avatar
sonofeugene sonofeugene is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,803
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

More awesomeness!!

Fcuk Newsmen and his ilk. I'll bet none of them served and signed a blank check to this fine country.

The roster should be next. Frankly, that should be even easier to defeat as it's been shown to be impossible to implement micro-stamping.
__________________
Let us not pray to be sheltered from dangers but to be fearless when facing them. - Rabindranath Tagore

A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it. - Rabindranath Tagore

Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhaur

Last edited by sonofeugene; 04-03-2019 at 11:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 04-03-2019, 12:11 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonofeugene View Post
More awesomeness!!

Fcuk Newsmen and his ilk. I'll bet none of them served and signed a blank check to this fine country.

The roster should be next. Frankly, that should be even easier to defeat as it's been shown to be impossible to implement micro-stamping.
Should be, I agree. However, the 9th disagreed with us both. It's up for SCOTUS review in the coming months.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 04-03-2019, 1:03 PM
loganob831 loganob831 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 59
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by everyday_hero View Post
Heard it, read it, the max was 500 rounds. Restricted bulk. Government social experiment. Pretty restrictive if it means 500>= when it comes to multiple calibers, practice, & self defense. Eliminates stock piling.
Wait, what? I thought that the law was if you wanted to SELL 500+ rounds/month you had to get a vendor's license...

If the law limits purchasing to <500 rounds then I need to refill SOON.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 04-03-2019, 1:16 PM
Markinsac's Avatar
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 986
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
So a $1 tax on as many rounds as you want to buy at one time is too much?
Read the latest order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Part of the issue is that the transfer has to be face-to-face. The judge states that it is required whether the vendor was one mile away or even much further. In addition, unless you're willing to pay for the delivery afterwards, you have to load and move your purchase.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ndants-MTD.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 04-03-2019, 1:21 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,953
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loganob831 View Post
Wait, what? I thought that the law was if you wanted to SELL 500+ rounds/month you had to get a vendor's license...

If the law limits purchasing to <500 rounds then I need to refill SOON.
The limit on what one can sell, trade, or give away without a vendor's license is also un-Constitutional and amounts to an illegal takings.

It's the same as if someone selling a car was required by law to sell it to a car dealer.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 04-03-2019, 4:51 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post
The limit on what one can sell, trade, or give away without a vendor's license is also un-Constitutional and amounts to an illegal takings.

It's the same as if someone selling a car was required by law to sell it to a car dealer.
You forgot to mention the sale part of the transaction. As in: It's the same as if someone buying a car was required by law to buy the car from a dealer. The FFL is effectively a dealer license.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 04-03-2019, 4:58 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Should be, I agree. However, the 9th disagreed with us both. It's up for SCOTUS review in the coming months.
It has been up for review 3 months now and no decision to accept or decline. The glass half full interpretation is that be thankful the petition hasn't been declined. The glass half empty interpretation is that they can't round up four votes to even consider the question.

Net-net, I have my fingers crossed for the case being accepted, but I am also not ruling out a denial. Three months is a bit long for a decision.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 04-04-2019, 5:53 AM
jj805's Avatar
jj805 jj805 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Moorpark
Posts: 4,492
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
It has been up for review 3 months now and no decision to accept or decline. The glass half full interpretation is that be thankful the petition hasn't been declined. The glass half empty interpretation is that they can't round up four votes to even consider the question.

Net-net, I have my fingers crossed for the case being accepted, but I am also not ruling out a denial. Three months is a bit long for a decision.
It hasn't even been to conference yet...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 04-04-2019, 8:29 AM
canopis's Avatar
canopis canopis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 288
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
It has been up for review 3 months now and no decision to accept or decline. The glass half full interpretation is that be thankful the petition hasn't been declined. The glass half empty interpretation is that they can't round up four votes to even consider the question.

Net-net, I have my fingers crossed for the case being accepted, but I am also not ruling out a denial. Three months is a bit long for a decision.
The deadline to file a petition for certorari was extended, as was the time for the state to file a response. As a result, all of the briefing for the petition was only finished on March 18. The justices will consider the petition at their April 12 conference, at which time they can grant, deny, or "relist" the petition, which means they will consider it again at the next conference.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 06-28-2019, 7:19 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bump.

With the pending July 1st date for $1/$19 additional taxes on ammunition purchases, I was wondering why no motion for preliminary injunction?
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 4:25 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