|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#521
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#522
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.. |
#523
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#524
|
||||
|
||||
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 Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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.. |
#526
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
(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. |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#529
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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." |
#530
|
||||
|
||||
Just ordered by the 9th Circuit.
Quote:
|
#531
|
|||
|
|||
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?
|
#532
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#533
|
|||
|
|||
So generally a good thing?
|
#534
|
|||
|
|||
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.. |
#536
|
||||
|
||||
Bumatay's dissenting statement on the vacate and remand order:
Quote:
__________________
RE-ELECT SHERIFF VILLANUEVA 2022 GC: Yellow/Light Green6/08: 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." |
#537
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
ETA and not 'Bruen' but NYSRPA, please.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "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."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. |
#539
|
||||
|
||||
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 "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."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. |
#540
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#541
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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.) |
#542
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#543
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...1-Judgment.pdf
__________________
|
#544
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#545
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#546
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#547
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#548
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#549
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#550
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 "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."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. |
#551
|
|||
|
|||
|
#552
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Sent from my moto g stylus 5G using Tapatalk |
#553
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#554
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#555
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#556
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#557
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#558
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "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."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. |
#559
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "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."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. |
#560
|
||||
|
||||
"common use" cuts both ways
Quote:
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.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|