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
  #2161  
Old 06-18-2021, 5:19 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphr02 View Post
Can't decide if this was just creative writing, or if AG lies to themselves so much they actually believe this is what's on the line. Either way, it must hurt to be so far left.
What’s interesting is the AG’s use of the word ‘theoretical’ when describing the use of AR-15s for self defense … when there are mountains of empirical data of AR-15s being used by millions of people, and among them numerous documented cases of AR-15s being used for home defense, or used in the defense of others (remember that church shooting a few years back where a guy got his AR out of his truck and shot the murderer?). That’s not ‘theoretical’. It’s empiricism. But we know the long string of CA’s AG’s aren’t interested in facts. They just keep promoting a narrative, hoping that liberal judges on the 9th will echo them, then ‘defer’ to the legislature.
Reply With Quote
  #2162  
Old 06-18-2021, 5:59 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,816
iTrader: 98 / 100%
Default

I’m wondering if Bonta and Gavin flaming a sitting judge in a press conference pissed off the judges in the 9th. Even though they may differ in regards to some issues, I’m sure most judges don’t appreciate a fellow judge being lambasted in the media by a governor and AG.
Reply With Quote
  #2163  
Old 06-18-2021, 7:41 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,368
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
I’m wondering if Bonta and Gavin flaming a sitting judge in a press conference pissed off the judges in the 9th. Even though they may differ in regards to some issues, I’m sure most judges don’t appreciate a fellow judge being lambasted in the media by a governor and AG.
I'm betting Benitez is a pariah that is hated by Sidney Thomas' old boys' network. I doubt they respect him. They, like Newsom, lack the intellectual honesty to seriously consider anything he writes.

Bonta has an excuse, at least. Crapping all over his subjects' rights is, after all, his job.
__________________
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

Last edited by curtisfong; 06-18-2021 at 7:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2164  
Old 06-19-2021, 7:12 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,803
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I'm betting Benitez is a pariah that is hated by Sidney Thomas' old boys' network. I doubt they respect him. They, like Newsom, lack the intellectual honesty to seriously consider anything he writes.

Bonta has an excuse, at least. Crapping all over his subjects' rights is, after all, his job.
You’re too much of a conspiracy theorist. It’s probably the opposite and many are good friends. (With opposing views) It’s common knowledge that even the SCOTUS with their divisions actually like one another. RBG was friends with Scalia and Scalia even took Kagen hunting/shooting.

Too many, it’s just a job. They don’t always live for work. You’re perception of life might be a little out of touch. I know several judges that agree with me.
Reply With Quote
  #2165  
Old 06-19-2021, 9:59 AM
Toybasher Toybasher is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 29
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
Nope! Judges are on call. See the Rhode v Becerra administrative stay.
When the day ends we'll know if they decided to do anything or not.

I mean, for a 3-judge stay pending appeal you'll probably see it between 9-5 or whatever. But a 2-judge administrative/temporary stay or something to prevent "irreparable harm" while they consider the merits of the stay request you could see at any hour of the day.
Well, the day ended. AFAIK nothing happened at least that I'm aware of.

Does this mean Freedom Week 2 is likely and we'll hit July 4th before any action such as a stay can be taken?
Reply With Quote
  #2166  
Old 06-19-2021, 10:17 AM
Bolt_Action Bolt_Action is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 488
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toybasher View Post
Well, the day ended. AFAIK nothing happened at least that I'm aware of.

Does this mean Freedom Week 2 is likely and we'll hit July 4th before any action such as a stay can be taken?
No matter what does or doesn’t happen, “freedom week 2” will never be likely.
Reply With Quote
  #2167  
Old 06-19-2021, 10:19 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 103
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes more than likely they attend graduations, biirthday parties and 4th of JULY cook outs of one another the all share common ground they are after all jurrists whom sit on the 9th circuit among the most important they are humans and are supposed to set aside their indifferences, feelings, political attributes when deciding court cases they must read the constitution for as it is written as the oath of office states to uphold and protect any person in public office or holding a place in which decisions are to be made effecting the people and their constitutional rights as set down by the founders. Need to exuse them selves from their duties if they cannot set aside their indifferences and be impartial.
Reply With Quote
  #2168  
Old 06-19-2021, 11:15 AM
3rd_gear 3rd_gear is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Jose
Posts: 554
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Yup, won't be a "freedom week 2". It'll be plain freedom.
This is gonna be the best 4th of July EVER!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolt_Action View Post
No matter what does or doesn’t happen, “freedom week 2” will never be likely.
Reply With Quote
  #2169  
Old 06-19-2021, 12:06 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,049
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So, where are we at? Was the 18th the cut off for the courts to decide on whether Miller will be perma stayed?
__________________
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
  #2170  
Old 06-19-2021, 2:36 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,816
iTrader: 98 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
So, where are we at? Was the 18th the cut off for the courts to decide on whether Miller will be perma stayed?

No it was just a date the AG wanted them to rule by for an emergency stay. It’s kind of nice it didn’t happen. But they’re basically asking for stay after stay to see if something sticks, and usually something does whenever it’s against us.
Reply With Quote
  #2171  
Old 06-19-2021, 3:51 PM
M60A1Rise's Avatar
M60A1Rise M60A1Rise is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 838
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd_gear View Post
Yup, won't be a "freedom week 2". It'll be plain freedom.
This is gonna be the best 4th of July EVER!!
I TRULY hope so ! I have my grips ready to put back on lmao.
__________________
"Common sense is self defense"
Reply With Quote
  #2172  
Old 06-19-2021, 4:00 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,816
iTrader: 98 / 100%
Default

This is kind of ironic seeing as a Ford 150 was mentioned in the opinion…

https://www.yahoo.com/news/driver-ac...184634228.html
Reply With Quote
  #2173  
Old 06-19-2021, 4:13 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,070
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
No it was just a date the AG wanted them to rule by for an emergency stay. It’s kind of nice it didn’t happen. But they’re basically asking for stay after stay to see if something sticks, and usually something does whenever it’s against us.
^^ This. It's not clear to me if the Juneteenth holiday factored into the delay of the decision; the announcement makes it seem to apply to the filing only. Judges are on call, so 2 judges could easily get together on a holiday to give something an administrative stay... so we may see the judges say something on Monday, but I'd hope that they don't even respond on Monday to make it clear that the AG can pound sand when demanding arbitrary emergency deadline dates, even if the court ultimately grants a stay pending appeal.

I'd hope that they deny all recourse to the AG, but that's definitely hoping too much .
Reply With Quote
  #2174  
Old 06-19-2021, 4:58 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 166
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Since Benitez stayed his own decision, the 9th has until July to decide how to word their stay during the appeal. No reason for them to work on a holiday. They can celebrate two “freedom” holidays then come back to work and take that freedom away.

Last edited by Foothills; 06-19-2021 at 5:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2175  
Old 06-19-2021, 5:27 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,049
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So is July 4th comes with no word from the 9th. Our rights are returned. Can the court then issue a stay say July 5th, 7th or even Aug??
__________________
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
  #2176  
Old 06-19-2021, 6:08 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,816
iTrader: 98 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
So is July 4th comes with no word from the 9th. Our rights are returned. Can the court then issue a stay say July 5th, 7th or even Aug??
They could stay it another day, but all it would take is a small amount of time to be able to convert our rifles. Maybe not enough time to order a new one and wait the 10 days, but enough time to remove a fin grip.
Reply With Quote
  #2177  
Old 06-19-2021, 6:16 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,070
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
So is July 4th comes with no word from the 9th. Our rights are returned. Can the court then issue a stay say July 5th, 7th or even Aug??
That's not going to happen. The unlikely thing that could happen is that the motions panel is 2-1 pro-2A, denying the stay (and denying administrative stay during appeal to en banc) but then it would be appealed en banc, and then... actually I don't know how that works with appealing the MOTIONS PANEL en banc. I'd have to look at the General Orders.
Reply With Quote
  #2178  
Old 06-19-2021, 6:45 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 839
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
That's not going to happen. The unlikely thing that could happen is that the motions panel is 2-1 pro-2A, denying the stay (and denying administrative stay during appeal to en banc) but then it would be appealed en banc, and then... actually I don't know how that works with appealing the MOTIONS PANEL en banc. I'd have to look at the General Orders.

General Order 6.11
Reply With Quote
  #2179  
Old 06-19-2021, 7:26 PM
TFA777 TFA777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 266
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
An annoyed court will still always decide in your favor if you have the correct ideology.



This doesn't always mean political ideology either. I once had an appeal case where the cops invaded my client's home without a warrant, then tried to cover it up by saying welfare check because my client, standing in the kitchen cooking, was ignoring them so they (literally) broke in through the sliding glass door to verify that he was ok. And then proceeded to drag him physically outside where they questioned him about a misdemeanor DUI without reading him his Rights.



Case law is clear, misdemeanors don't fall under the felony warrant exception from the 4A and especially not when the basis for the warrantless entry is pretextual. Court didn't care. Why? Because the ideology is to put/keep people in jail and the law be damned.



Yeah, that really happened. It also makes you understand why 2A cases are so hard to win.
Didn't SCOTUS just put the kibosh on welfare check crap.
Reply With Quote
  #2180  
Old 06-19-2021, 9:11 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,049
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFA777 View Post
Didn't SCOTUS just put the kibosh on welfare check crap.
Yes. Unless a warrant is obtained, it's a no go for police to enter and confiscate.
__________________
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
  #2181  
Old 06-19-2021, 11:57 PM
rplaw rplaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 733
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFA777 View Post
Didn't SCOTUS just put the kibosh on welfare check crap.
Like I said, the law is clear but the appeals court didn't care and affirmed the conviction. You might (or might not) be surprised at the contortions they went through to get there. To the point that at least 1 justice began to argue with me that case law on point "didn't say what I was claiming it said."

Reading the quote direct from the decision made no difference, he insisted that the words I spoke aloud didn't exist. Which was very disconcerting not having ever come across that type of denialism before.

It was about that point in time that I began to be a wee bit disillusioned about the fairness of our justice system.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #2182  
Old 06-20-2021, 4:12 PM
TFA777 TFA777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 266
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Like I said, the law is clear but the appeals court didn't care and affirmed the conviction. You might (or might not) be surprised at the contortions they went through to get there. To the point that at least 1 justice began to argue with me that case law on point "didn't say what I was claiming it said."



Reading the quote direct from the decision made no difference, he insisted that the words I spoke aloud didn't exist. Which was very disconcerting not having ever come across that type of denialism before.



It was about that point in time that I began to be a wee bit disillusioned about the fairness of our justice system.
Reading the Obamacare opinion by Roberts (?) who made a non tax into a tax, so what you say doesn't surprise me in the least.
The courts will look for consistency before they look at logic, reductio ad absurdem notwithstanding.
Reply With Quote
  #2183  
Old 06-20-2021, 4:21 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,568
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFA777 View Post
Didn't SCOTUS just put the kibosh on welfare check crap.
Nope.

Methinks that you may be misunderstanding the decision, made last month, by the Supreme Court in Caniglia v Strom.

That case didn't do anything to change the police practice of "Welfare Checks."

What Caniglia did was to make very clear (as in a 9-0 decision) that LEO's could not apply the "Community Caretaking" doctrine to justify the warrantless seizure of firearms from a home.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #2184  
Old 06-20-2021, 6:12 PM
p7m8jg's Avatar
p7m8jg p7m8jg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Modesto
Posts: 1,703
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Nope.

Methinks that you may be misunderstanding the decision, made last month, by the Supreme Court in Caniglia v Strom.

That case didn't do anything to change the police practice of "Welfare Checks."

What Caniglia did was to make very clear (as in a 9-0 decision) that LEO's could not apply the "Community Caretaking" doctrine to justify the warrantless seizure of firearms from a home.
Thank you! People mistake that as a 2nd Amendment case when it was clearly about the 4th Amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #2185  
Old 06-21-2021, 6:06 AM
TFA777 TFA777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 266
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Nope.



Methinks that you may be misunderstanding the decision, made last month, by the Supreme Court in Caniglia v Strom.



That case didn't do anything to change the police practice of "Welfare Checks."



What Caniglia did was to make very clear (as in a 9-0 decision) that LEO's could not apply the "Community Caretaking" doctrine to justify the warrantless seizure of firearms from a home.


Quote:
Originally Posted by p7m8jg View Post
Thank you! People mistake that as a 2nd Amendment case when it was clearly about the 4th Amendment.
It started with a welfare check.
The police overstepped their bounds by extending the welfare check to using community caretaking consider for a warrantless search.

i was responding to rplaw's comment where he refers to 4th amendment violation of a client of his. I never said anything about 2A.

Caniglia covers using welfare check as a pretext for warrantless search and seizure.
Reply With Quote
  #2186  
Old 06-21-2021, 8:02 AM
cre8nhavoc's Avatar
cre8nhavoc cre8nhavoc is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 77
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
This is kind of ironic seeing as a Ford 150 was mentioned in the opinion…

https://www.yahoo.com/news/driver-ac...184634228.html

I wonder if the victims and their familes can sue Ford and hold them accountable. I mean, you can now do it with firearm companies and the truck in question wasn't used as it was intended. Same liberal logic, right?
Reply With Quote
  #2187  
Old 06-21-2021, 9:24 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,568
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFA777 View Post
It started with a welfare check.
The police overstepped their bounds by extending the welfare check to using community caretaking consider for a warrantless search.

i was responding to rplaw's comment where he refers to 4th amendment violation of a client of his. I never said anything about 2A.

Caniglia covers using welfare check as a pretext for warrantless search and seizure.
Go back and read the case.

You correctly understand that officers initially went to the Caniglia home to conduct a "Welfare Check" after his wife had been unable to reach him. Officers conducted that check, located Mr. Caniglia, and arranged for him to be hospitalized.

That sequence of events ended the "Welfare Check." The Court found no fault with the manner in which the "Welfare Check" was conducted. There was no "extension" of the "Welfare Check." The Court analyzed the reentry into the home as a separate activity (please note that officers only initially "entered" the home as far as the porch to render aid to Mr. Caniglia)

The legal events that caused the Supreme Court to fang the officers all occurred after that point in time.

It's important to note that Mr. Caniglia argued that the both the entry to seize him, and the entry to seize the firearms violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court only found that the second entry (which was well into the interior of the home), and the one to seize the firearms, violated the Amendment.

Following the conclusion of the "Welfare Check", the officers elected to re-enter the home under the legal theory that the "Community Caretaker" doctrine would allow them to seize Mr. Caniglia's firearms presented a threat to public safety. In so doing, they relied upon an extension of the reasoning in Cady v Dombrowski where the court upheld the seizure of a firearm from a vehicle on what has later been term "Community Caretaking" grounds.

In the Caniglia decision, the Supreme Court did not throw out the "Community Caretaking" doctrine. It simply found that the doctrine was unreasonably applied to the (re)entry into Mr. Caniglia's home.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RickD427; 06-21-2021 at 9:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2188  
Old 06-21-2021, 10:56 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 978
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Go back and read the case.

You correctly understand that officers initially went to the Caniglia home to conduct a "Welfare Check" after his wife had been unable to reach him. Officers conducted that check, located Mr. Caniglia, and arranged for him to be hospitalized.

That sequence of events ended the "Welfare Check." The Court found no fault with the manner in which the "Welfare Check" was conducted. There was no "extension" of the "Welfare Check." The Court analyzed the reentry into the home as a separate activity (please note that officers only initially "entered" the home as far as the porch to render aid to Mr. Caniglia)

The legal events that caused the Supreme Court to fang the officers all occurred after that point in time.

It's important to note that Mr. Caniglia argued that the both the entry to seize him, and the entry to seize the firearms violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court only found that the second entry (which was well into the interior of the home), and the one to seize the firearms, violated the Amendment.

Following the conclusion of the "Welfare Check", the officers elected to re-enter the home under the legal theory that the "Community Caretaker" doctrine would allow them to seize Mr. Caniglia's firearms presented a threat to public safety. In so doing, they relied upon an extension of the reasoning in Cady v Dombrowski where the court upheld the seizure of a firearm from a vehicle on what has later been term "Community Caretaking" grounds.

In the Caniglia decision, the Supreme Court did not throw out the "Community Caretaking" doctrine. It simply found that the doctrine was unreasonably applied to the (re)entry into Mr. Caniglia's home.
Wasnt that car impounded. There seems to be a wide gulf between removing a firearm from w car in a police impound lot and breaking into someone's house to take their guns. The car was under control of the police while the house wasn't.
Reply With Quote
  #2189  
Old 06-21-2021, 11:06 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,568
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Wasnt that car impounded. There seems to be a wide gulf between removing a firearm from w car in a police impound lot and breaking into someone's house to take their guns. The car was under control of the police while the house wasn't.
Your understanding is correct.

In Caniglia, the Supreme Court made a very clear distinction between the vehicle search in Cady and the residential search done in Caniglia. The key distinctions were that 1) A home has a greater expectation of privacy than a does a vehicle. and 2) Firearms left in a vehicle, in a storage lot, are at much greater risk of theft than are firearms secured in a home.

The Court didn't throw out the "Community Caretaker" doctrine. It simply found that it produced a "reasonable" seizure in the Cady case, and led to an "unreasonable" seizure in the Caniglia case.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #2190  
Old 06-21-2021, 12:47 PM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,283
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Your understanding is correct.

In Caniglia, the Supreme Court made a very clear distinction between the vehicle search in Cady and the residential search done in Caniglia. The key distinctions were that 1) A home has a greater expectation of privacy than a does a vehicle. and 2) Firearms left in a vehicle, in a storage lot, are at much greater risk of theft than are firearms secured in a home.

The Court didn't throw out the "Community Caretaker" doctrine. It simply found that it produced a "reasonable" seizure in the Cady case, and led to an "unreasonable" seizure in the Caniglia case.
Would it have made any practical difference if the firearms that were seized been in a securely locked safe, or in some other manner not available to the officers?
Reply With Quote
  #2191  
Old 06-21-2021, 1:20 PM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 7,837
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

What does any of this have to do with the progression of this case?
Reply With Quote
  #2192  
Old 06-21-2021, 1:27 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,568
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
Would it have made any practical difference if the firearms that were seized been in a securely locked safe, or in some other manner not available to the officers?
The way I read the case, it would have made no difference. The Court faulted the officers for making an "unreasonable" entry into the residence for the purpose of locating the firearms, and that occurred even before they actually located the firearms.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #2193  
Old 06-21-2021, 1:50 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,759
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
06/21/2021 13 Filed order (BARRY G. SILVERMAN, JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN and RYAN D. NELSON): The motion by the State of Arizona, et al. (Docket Entry No. [9]-1) for leave to file an amicus brief in opposition to appellants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is granted. The clerk will file the amicus brief (Docket Entry No. [9]-2). The district court’s June 4, 2021 order and judgment are stayed pending resolution of Rupp v. Bonta, No. 19-56004. The stay shall remain in effect until further order of this court. Briefing in this appeal is stayed. Within 14 days of this court’s decision in Rupp v. Bonta, the parties shall file a status report and may request appropriate relief. [12149589] (AF) [Entered: 06/21/2021 02:47 PM]
July 4th party canceled ?

Last edited by abinsinia; 06-21-2021 at 1:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2194  
Old 06-21-2021, 1:51 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,087
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
Would it have made any practical difference if the firearms that were seized been in a securely locked safe, or in some other manner not available to the officers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
The way I read the case, it would have made no difference. The Court faulted the officers for making an "unreasonable" entry into the residence for the purpose of locating the firearms, and that occurred even before they actually located the firearms.
Actually, Caniglia's firearms were securely locked in a safe. The officers lied to the Mrs. And told her that her husband had given them permission to take his guns. And conned her into opening the safe.

As well as the "unreasonable" entry that Rick mentions. Since that occurred while Caniglia was already in voluntary custody at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #2195  
Old 06-21-2021, 1:58 PM
rplaw rplaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 733
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
some response.
Stayed pending Rupp? What the heck?
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #2196  
Old 06-21-2021, 2:05 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,759
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Stayed pending Rupp? What the heck?
and Rupp is stayed pending Duncan.
Reply With Quote
  #2197  
Old 06-21-2021, 2:12 PM
AbrahamBurden AbrahamBurden is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 565
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
July 4th party canceled ?
Where did you find this? Didn't see any mention of it on FPC's page for Miller v. Bonta.
Reply With Quote
  #2198  
Old 06-21-2021, 2:13 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,759
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbrahamBurden View Post
Where did you find this? Didn't see any mention of it on FPC's page for Miller v. Bonta.
It was pulled off pacer.gov .. pacer is where the documents are filed.
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 2:14 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.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical