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
  #521  
Old 12-16-2021, 11:42 AM
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 FirearmFino View Post
Filed order (ANDREW D. HURWITZ, DANIEL A. BRESS and PATRICK J. BUMATAY): This appeal shall be held in further abeyance pending the issuance of a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, No. 20-843. The Court will issue any orders concerning additional briefing or argument after the Supreme Court issues its decision.
This is good news, I do believe.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 12-16-2021, 12:40 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 ar15barrels View Post
It's good because this will continue the stay against prosecution for posession.
Hopefully NYSRPA goes our way.
That stay is unrelated, isn't it? I was under the impression that the order (or rather, settlement agreement) you're referring to was issued in the Sharp case, only applies to weapons which were eligible to be registered (pre-2017 acquisitions), and that it expires as soon as the upcoming AW registration do-over is finished. Unless I'm not aware of a different stay?

The stay that was issued in Rupp is, I believe, the opposite of what you described; that it continues to allow prosecutions.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.



Last edited by CandG; 12-16-2021 at 12:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 12-16-2021, 3:03 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 56,434
iTrader: 119 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
That stay is unrelated, isn't it?
I got Rupp and Duncan crossed up.
I was thinking that if they held Duncan in abeyance pending NYSRPA that there would be no final order issued that would rescind the stay on prosecution under 32310.
Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 12-19-2021, 3:44 PM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Freedom, NC
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 80 / 99%
Default

I’ve heard it’s good news.. here’s a detailed breakdown:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aLR835...xH-HJzoKdIuYTg
__________________
“People believed that the opposite of war is peace. The truth is that the opposite of war is more often slavery” - Battlestar Galactica

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony270 View Post
It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA
Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 12-19-2021, 8:00 PM
Harry Ono Harry Ono is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 965
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The more they delay, the harder they'll fall.

These cases going to SCOTUS will be an easy win for our side and will close the door for the most significant portion of the anti-gun agenda - the AWB and magazine restrictions.
Unfortunately, this will not close the door and it will not stop the left from disarming the citizen. The left will continue to overturn any rights you may continue to see outright bans again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
This should have been the outcome in the Duncan case, but CA9 arrogance ruled the day. There is a reason why CA9 is the most over-ruled circuit in the nation.
Seems some judges in the 9th circuit were not qualified and should be removed.

Last edited by Harry Ono; 12-19-2021 at 8:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 12-20-2021, 7:51 AM
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 Steve1968LS2 View Post
I’ve heard it’s good news.. here’s a detailed breakdown:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aLR835...xH-HJzoKdIuYTg
Can I get a RBIDWTWAS?

(Recap because I don't want to watch Armed Scholar)
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 12-21-2021, 6:11 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Ono View Post
Unfortunately, this will not close the door and it will not stop the left from disarming the citizen. The left will continue to overturn any rights you may continue to see outright bans again.




Seems some judges in the 9th circuit were not qualified and should be removed.
Hard to do with the current makeup of the U.S. Senate. 67 votes to impeach is a very heavy lift.
Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 06-24-2022, 9:44 AM
Toybasher Toybasher is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is a bit of a necro but since the NY case was decided (in our favor) when do we expect a ruling on this?
Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 06-24-2022, 10:53 AM
B yond's Avatar
B yond B yond is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Here I am!
Posts: 575
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
Can I get a RBIDWTWAS?

(Recap because I don't want to watch Armed Scholar)
He is tough to watch isn't he?

I'm sure someone can give you a recap, "but real quick before they do...."
__________________
"What concealed weapon? This identifies as an emotional support device."
Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 06-28-2022, 12:57 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 989
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Just ordered by the 9th Circuit.

Quote:
The district court’s judgment is vacated, and this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ____ (2022). The parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. This order constitutes the mandate of this court. VACATED AND REMANDED.
Reply With Quote
  #531  
Old 06-28-2022, 1:02 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,655
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
Just ordered by the 9th Circuit.
Remanded to the 3 judge panel? I’m lost where this ended up. I thought it never made it en banc, and was just held for Bruen? Is that correct?
Reply With Quote
  #532  
Old 06-28-2022, 1:11 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 989
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
Remanded to the 3 judge panel? I’m lost where this ended up. I thought it never made it en banc, and was just held for Bruen? Is that correct?
It was briefed on the merits, and the three judge panel heard oral arguments. They held off issuing a decision because of Bruen pending before the Supreme Court. Ultimately, instead of issuing a decision, they just sent it back to the District Court Judge.
Reply With Quote
  #533  
Old 06-28-2022, 1:13 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 379
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So generally a good thing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
It was briefed on the merits, and the three judge panel heard oral arguments. They held off issuing a decision because of Bruen pending before the Supreme Court. Ultimately, instead of issuing a decision, they just sent it back to the District Court Judge.
Reply With Quote
  #534  
Old 06-28-2022, 1:13 PM
SPGuy SPGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 145
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
Remanded to the 3 judge panel? I’m lost where this ended up. I thought it never made it en banc, and was just held for Bruen? Is that correct?
Bumatay made a dissent on this saying it shouldn’t go back to the lower court, instead they should just let the 3 judge panel make the ruling and save everyone time and money….so it seems it’s going back to be heard by the lower court.

Last edited by SPGuy; 06-28-2022 at 1:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #535  
Old 06-28-2022, 1:17 PM
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 11,791
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

What’s the purpose of remanding it back to the judge that already found it unconstitutional? Other than the obvious delay tactic.
Reply With Quote
  #536  
Old 06-28-2022, 1:17 PM
2AforCA's Avatar
2AforCA 2AforCA is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: SoCal
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
Just ordered by the 9th Circuit.
Bumatay's dissenting statement on the vacate and remand order:
Quote:
With a clear legal standard now in hand, we should have ordered supplemental briefing to further this case along. Instead, we instinctively kick the can back to the district court...A remand here may just prolong the inevitable as we will eventually have to decide this case - adding unnecessary delays and expenses for the parties.
__________________
RE-ELECT SHERIFF VILLANUEVA 2022
GC: Yellow/Light Green
6/08: App submitted to Temple City
1/21: Called for interview | 2/03: Interviewed in Monterey Park
2/04: Live Scan Submitted | 2/07: CA/FBI Completed | 3/30: Firearms Completed
4/06: Proceed with training email | 4/11: Training Docs Submitted
4/25: Called for pickup | 4/27: License issued

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Reply With Quote
  #537  
Old 06-28-2022, 1:18 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,420
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
Remanded to the 3 judge panel? I’m lost where this ended up. I thought it never made it en banc, and was just held for Bruen? Is that correct?
No, the order quoted says "remanded to the district court "; that is, the July 22 2019 decision
Quote:
After considering the moving and opposing papers and evidence, and the arguments of counsel at the hearing, on July 22, 2019, the Court issued an order granting Defendant Attorney General’s motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 108.)
will be re-assessed at THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

ETA and not 'Bruen' but NYSRPA, please.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #538  
Old 06-28-2022, 1:19 PM
SPGuy SPGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 145
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
What’s the purpose of remanding it back to the judge that already found it unconstitutional? Other than the obvious delay tactic.
You nailed it on the head. Delay delay delay
Reply With Quote
  #539  
Old 06-28-2022, 1:28 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,420
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPGuy View Post
You nailed it on the head. Delay delay delay
Maybe. The 2019 judgment docs do not include an analysis by the judge, so hard to tell what legal effect NYSRPA might have here; Judge Stanton appeared to be convinced by the briefs supplied by the State, so one must look at their (previously) winning arguments.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #540  
Old 06-28-2022, 1:56 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,655
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

This is on the final page of that decision:

“ Accordingly, the Court concludes that the AWCA withstands intermediate scrutiny “

So the arguments now will have to focus on where in past history did the government ban particular guns. And so the argument about how much more dangerous guns with pistol grips are goes out the window?
Reply With Quote
  #541  
Old 06-28-2022, 2:07 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
What’s the purpose of remanding it back to the judge that already found it unconstitutional? Other than the obvious delay tactic.

Delay, plus avoiding having to sit circuit-wide precedent (i.e., what can other states do, what can the federal government do, how to apply Bruen, etc.)
Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 06-28-2022, 2:08 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
This is on the final page of that decision:

“ Accordingly, the Court concludes that the AWCA withstands intermediate scrutiny “

So the arguments now will have to focus on where in past history did the government ban particular guns. And so the argument about how much more dangerous guns with pistol grips are goes out the window?
Yes, second argument is pretty much irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 06-28-2022, 2:37 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
What’s the purpose of remanding it back to the judge that already found it unconstitutional? Other than the obvious delay tactic.
I don't think the judge in 2019 found it unconstitutional, the judge sided with the State/Becerra.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...1-Judgment.pdf
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 06-28-2022, 3:17 PM
Texas Boy's Avatar
Texas Boy Texas Boy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 804
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
I don't think the judge in 2019 found it unconstitutional, the judge sided with the State/Becerra.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...1-Judgment.pdf
So that was just a summary judgement, and there wasn't a full blown trial or any judicial statements or opinions issued, correct? In other words he just rubber stamped the case for the state.

So the question here is how long does he get to sit on it this time before doing anything with it. I think it is almost a forgone conclusion this judge will find some way to rule against us again.
__________________
...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 06-28-2022, 3:21 PM
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 11,791
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
I don't think the judge in 2019 found it unconstitutional, the judge sided with the State/Becerra.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...1-Judgment.pdf
Ok, I was thinking of Miller and Benitez tossing it out.
Reply With Quote
  #546  
Old 06-28-2022, 3:22 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommieforniaResident View Post
Delay, plus avoiding having to sit circuit-wide precedent (i.e., what can other states do, what can the federal government do, how to apply Bruen, etc.)
Also, I've just read part of the initial opinion by the District Court and the judge concludes that "assault weapons" fall outside the scope of the 2A because they are akin to M16s and Heller contained language suggesting banning M16s is ok. The judge wrote that M16s are mostly used in semiautomatic, army doctrine provides that soldiers should mainly use M16s in semi-automatic configuration, and M16s and AR15s are otherwise identical.

This suggests that another reason they might have sent this back was because the judge would still keep the AW ban in place by saying that the 2A right itself was not implicated.
Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 06-28-2022, 3:28 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Boy View Post
So that was just a summary judgement, and there wasn't a full blown trial or any judicial statements or opinions issued, correct?
That's incorrect. Summary judgment is a final ruling on the merits of the case. The court did provide an opinion regarding why it ruled for the state.
Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 06-28-2022, 7:45 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 56,434
iTrader: 119 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommieforniaResident View Post
Summary judgment is a final ruling on the merits of the case.
The court did provide an opinion regarding why it ruled for the state.
So the summary judgement is vacated and the case is thrown back to that court to rule again more creatively now that they also have to accommodate the single test of Bruen.
Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 06-28-2022, 8:02 PM
lp3056's Avatar
lp3056 lp3056 is offline
The Over Generalizer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 732
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
So the summary judgement is vacated and the case is thrown back to that court to rule again more creatively now that they also have to accommodate the single test of Bruen.
The judge will have to work much harder as the wiggle room has gotten substantially smaller. I think the judge will have to move closer to our side in the next judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 06-28-2022, 8:03 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,420
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommieforniaResident View Post
That's incorrect. Summary judgment is a final ruling on the merits of the case. The court did provide an opinion regarding why it ruled for the state.
Would you please point out which document has that? Link, even?

Not saying it isn't there somewhere, but I can't find it ...
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #551  
Old 06-28-2022, 8:11 PM
fudd fudd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 23
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Might be this one https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ntiffs-MSJ.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Would you please point out which document has that? Link, even?

Not saying it isn't there somewhere, but I can't find it ...
Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 06-28-2022, 8:11 PM
cleonard cleonard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 948
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lp3056 View Post
The judge will have to work much harder as the wiggle room has gotten substantially smaller. I think the judge will have to move closer to our side in the next judgment.
He will not have to work hard at all. Plenty of fake history will be handed to him so he can find for the state.

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 06-28-2022, 8:29 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Would you please point out which document has that? Link, even?

Not saying it isn't there somewhere, but I can't find it ...
Here you go: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ntiffs-MSJ.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 06-28-2022, 8:31 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton

She literally copy/pasted the state's filings. Worthless.
__________________
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
  #555  
Old 06-28-2022, 8:39 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,718
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommieforniaResident View Post
She wrote that she rejected the exact test which she now is required to use per the Bruen case. She did not find the historical test persuasive.
Reply With Quote
  #556  
Old 06-28-2022, 8:47 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,655
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
She wrote that she rejected the exact test which she now is required to use per the Bruen case. She did not find the historical test persuasive.
And I especially liked the part where she said something to the effect of “if the Supreme Court wanted us to use the historical argument they SURELY would have mentioned it”. Well, now they mentioned it.
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 06-28-2022, 8:48 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

It is obvious from literally every word she wrote she doesn't care one whit for the law. She wants to find for the State, by whatever means necessary.
__________________
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
  #558  
Old 06-28-2022, 9:05 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,420
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommieforniaResident View Post
Muchisimas gracias!
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 06-28-2022, 9:11 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,420
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
She wrote that she rejected the exact test which she now is required to use per the Bruen case. She did not find the historical test persuasive.
Ah, yes -
Quote:
While they acknowledge that the Court is bound by the Ninth Circuit’s two-step inquiry (Plaintiffs’ Mem. at 17 n.10), Plaintiffs devote a significant portion of their briefing to arguing that the AWCA violates the Second Amendment under a “scope-based analysis” derived largely from then-Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1269–96 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). (See Plaintiffs’ Mem. at 11–17.) Essentially, Plaintiffs’ proposed test requires a “historical justification” for firearm regulations. (See id. at 11.) If there is no historical justification, the regulation is per se invalid. (Id.) The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ proposed test for two reasons. First, it does not find it persuasive for the reasons expressed by the majority opinion in Heller II. See 670 F.3d at 1265 (“If the Supreme Court truly intended to rule out any form of heightened scrutiny for all Second Amendment cases, then it surely would have said at least something to that effect.”); id. (“[T]he idea that Heller precludes heightened scrutiny has eluded every circuit to have addressed that question since Heller was issued.”); id. at 1267 (“Although Heller renders longstanding regulations presumptively constitutional, it nowhere suggests a law must be longstanding or rooted in text, history, and tradition to be constitutional.”).

Second, and more simply, the Court is bound by the Ninth Circuit’s two-step inquiry.
From that, I would expect the NYSRPA opinion vitiates both halves of that dismissal.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 06-28-2022, 9:14 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

"common use" cuts both ways

Quote:
The Court notes, however, that analyzing the constitutionality of the AWCA based “on how
common a weapon is at the time of the litigation would be circular.” Friedman v. City of
Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that “[m]achine guns aren’t
commonly owned for lawful purposes today because they are illegal” and “semi-automatic
weapons with large-capacity magazines are owned more commonly because, until recently (in
some jurisdictions), they have been legal”)
Honestly, it is dangerous for anyone (pro or anti) to hang their hat on the "common use test" w/o fully examining the history of legal effect on the popularity of a given choice of arms.

Ideally, I'd love of the court relied more on "least restrictive means" in terms of among the "means that are effective", which is the least restrictive, given the balance of some proven, objective, efficacy.

Unfortunately, we know how horribly that can be gamed, so it isn't surprising SCOTUS chose to attempt to hamstring the 9th (and the 2nd) by forcing them to come up with "historical" precedent. It's unfortunate because all that does is incentivize lionization of "long standing prohibitions", which is an even more dangerous mind field, imo; as I have commented on in other threads, with regards to the fact that the longer standing a prohibition, the more likely it is to be discriminatory and unjust.
__________________
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; 06-28-2022 at 9:19 PM..
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 5:58 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