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
  #1961  
Old 06-09-2021, 8:04 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 50,986
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rcjackrabbit View Post
If it goes to the SC, we will probably win. Then, the commies in all the other States lose big. NY, NJ, CT, MA, and several other states would be pissed. It’s not just about states in the 9th Circus.

Letting us win in CA would help them minimize their loses from a big picture standpoint. The other Marxists could have told Newsome to take one for the team while they were feasting on small children.
CA has too much ego to "take one for the team" and fully believes they have nothing to worry about with the 9th circus.
They are all-in.
Reply With Quote
  #1962  
Old 06-09-2021, 8:47 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,374
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
CA has too much ego to "take one for the team" and fully believes they have nothing to worry about with the 9th circus.
They are all-in.
They also don't care about win or lose, they are doing it for the optics of being "tough" on gun owners. If they lose, it only helps them, they can complain about how crazy gun owners are.
__________________
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
  #1963  
Old 06-09-2021, 9:01 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,438
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
They also don't care about win or lose, they are doing it for the optics of being "tough" on gun owners. If they lose, it only helps them, they can complain about how crazy gun owners are.
Or, about how the deck was stacked against them at SCotUS.
Reply With Quote
  #1964  
Old 06-09-2021, 9:09 PM
HibikiR HibikiR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: LA County
Posts: 2,001
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Question: If California loses with the 9th, then does that mean any state in the 9th's jurisdiction can expect freedom (or sue for it) from AW bans too?
Reply With Quote
  #1965  
Old 06-09-2021, 9:10 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,374
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Or, about how the deck was stacked against them at SCotUS.
qft
__________________
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
  #1966  
Old 06-09-2021, 9:48 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,515
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HibikiR View Post
Question: If California loses with the 9th, then does that mean any state in the 9th's jurisdiction can expect freedom (or sue for it) from AW bans too?
If CA loses in the 9th (and/or in any subsequent en banc decision in the 9th), then yes, the AW ban is effectively rendered unconstitutional and would be enjoined from enforcement in CA. Since other states' laws in the 9th weren't directly the subject of the lawsuit, they would have to bring their own cases to have their own laws stricken, but those would be an easy win because they are required to adhere to the case law from this case. Usually (but not always) the other states would stop enforcing the laws that would be subject to the case law, making a lawsuit unnecessary.

It can be assumed that, even with CA being CA, if they lost in the 9th they would likely not pursue the case any further to SCOTUS, given the current SCOTUS makeup.

Of course, that's all hypothetical. The odds of actually winning in the 9th AND winning (or not getting) an en banc hearing afterwards, are astronomically low.

Our best chances are to get this case through the 9th circuit rejection formalities as quickly as possible, and win at SCOTUS.
__________________
AW Reg. will likely be reopened summer '21 to those who weren't able to register by 7/18. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!

Last edited by CandG; 06-09-2021 at 9:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1967  
Old 06-09-2021, 11:45 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,427
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HibikiR View Post
Question: If California loses with the 9th, then does that mean any state in the 9th's jurisdiction can expect freedom (or sue for it) from AW bans too?
What other states in the 9th Circuit ban AWs? I am not aware of any.
Reply With Quote
  #1968  
Old 06-10-2021, 12:56 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,095
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
What other states in the 9th Circuit ban AWs? I am not aware of any.
How about Hawaii? Keeping in mind that Ca hasn't banned them per se. They just REGULATED them into mere shadows of their former selves.

Last edited by pacrat; 06-10-2021 at 12:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1969  
Old 06-10-2021, 1:06 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,374
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
How about Hawaii? Keeping in mind that Ca hasn't banned them per se. They just REGULATED them into mere shadows of their former selves.
IIRC HI has no AW law other than the stupid Uzi et al laws, and pistol mag cap laws.
__________________
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
  #1970  
Old 06-10-2021, 2:13 AM
HibikiR HibikiR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: LA County
Posts: 2,001
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Just watching developments in other states (Oregon) and wondering when the Dems will cross the line that states like CA, NY, and MA have.
Reply With Quote
  #1971  
Old 06-10-2021, 7:50 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,427
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
How about Hawaii? Keeping in mind that Ca hasn't banned them per se. They just REGULATED them into mere shadows of their former selves.
Hawaii just bans assault pistols. AR style rifles are not banned. They are banned in CA if not registered and registration is closed. That is as close to a per se ban as I can imagine.
Reply With Quote
  #1972  
Old 06-10-2021, 8:29 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,515
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
How about Hawaii? Keeping in mind that Ca hasn't banned them per se. They just REGULATED them into mere shadows of their former selves.
They can call it "regulated" or "controlled" all they want, but when it's 100% impossible for a normal citizen to legally acquire (and in most cases, possess) the described item(s), it's a ban.

The things you're presumably referring to as "mere shadows of their former selves" are not assault weapons, and are not regulated or controlled by the CA AWCA. They became "mere shadows of their former selves" simply because their "former selves" are outright banned to anyone who isn't LEO or Hollywood elite.
__________________
AW Reg. will likely be reopened summer '21 to those who weren't able to register by 7/18. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!

Last edited by CandG; 06-10-2021 at 8:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1973  
Old 06-10-2021, 8:58 AM
NorCalAthlete's Avatar
NorCalAthlete NorCalAthlete is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 1,792
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
If CA loses in the 9th (and/or in any subsequent en banc decision in the 9th), then yes, the AW ban is effectively rendered unconstitutional and would be enjoined from enforcement in CA. Since other states' laws in the 9th weren't directly the subject of the lawsuit, they would have to bring their own cases to have their own laws stricken, but those would be an easy win because they are required to adhere to the case law from this case. Usually (but not always) the other states would stop enforcing the laws that would be subject to the case law, making a lawsuit unnecessary.

It can be assumed that, even with CA being CA, if they lost in the 9th they would likely not pursue the case any further to SCOTUS, given the current SCOTUS makeup.

Of course, that's all hypothetical. The odds of actually winning in the 9th AND winning (or not getting) an en banc hearing afterwards, are astronomically low.

Our best chances are to get this case through the 9th circuit rejection formalities as quickly as possible, and win at SCOTUS.
The fact that we all know it's a formality to get rejected should be a sign for some major reforms. I think my favorite part of the opinion was when Benitez called out 40+ years of trampling on 2A rights with their shenanigans.
__________________
Your views on any given subject are the sum of the media that you take in, scaled to the weight of the credibility of the source that provides it, seen through a lens of your own values, goals, and achievements.

You Are All Ambassadors, Whether You Like It Or Not

Pain is the hardest lesson to forget; Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity.

Bureaucracy is the epoxy that lubricates the gears of progress.
Reply With Quote
  #1974  
Old 06-10-2021, 9:16 AM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 840
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Notice of appeal filed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...2089.117.0.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #1975  
Old 06-10-2021, 9:26 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 669
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's now down to luck of the draw on the motions panel.
Reply With Quote
  #1976  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:24 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,515
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
It's now down to luck of the draw on the motions panel.
It would be hilarious if the panel decides that DOJ's reasoning that "we don't like that we lost" doesn't have standing to justify an appeal, and just rejects it

Probably not going to happen, but I can daydream...

I'm definitely curious to see what their appeal to the 9th actually says. Probably something along the lines of "The Judge erred in his decision, because we should be allowed to do whatever we want to do, as long as we say it's for public safety."
__________________
AW Reg. will likely be reopened summer '21 to those who weren't able to register by 7/18. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!

Last edited by CandG; 06-10-2021 at 10:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1977  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:27 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
That seems a little light on the reasoning. I thought you had to have a reason. At least that is what CA's Civic's self help suggests. Then again, IANAL.

__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #1978  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:30 AM
meanspartan's Avatar
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
It's now down to luck of the draw on the motions panel.
Probably not going to matter actually. People are overlooking that Rupp v. Becerra is way ahead of this case. It already has been assigned a panel and has been briefed and argued. It's just stayed pending Duncan.

Presumably, Rupp will get decided first and be controlling on Miller.

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/californ...or-gun-owners/
Reply With Quote
  #1979  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:33 AM
newbieLA newbieLA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 227
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
I'm not a lawyer but there is zero reasoning provided for the appeal or any justification for extending the stay. Is this normal?
Reply With Quote
  #1980  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:33 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,515
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
That seems a little light on the reasoning. I thought you had to have a reason. At least that is what CA's Civic's self help suggests. Then again, IANAL.
That is just a notice to Benitez's court that says "we filed an appeal with the 9th". It isn't the actual appeal; the appeal itself hasn't been posted online yet.
__________________
AW Reg. will likely be reopened summer '21 to those who weren't able to register by 7/18. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!
Reply With Quote
  #1981  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:35 AM
newbieLA newbieLA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 227
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
That is just a notice to Benitez's court that says "we filed an appeal with the 9th". It isn't the actual appeal; the appeal hasn't been posted yet.
ah ok, thank you for the clarification. this is all a circus anyway, the fact they can appeal to a 3 judge panel, then a 9 judge panel etc etc. they can drag this out with endless taxpayer funds, but I'm glad the fight continues
Reply With Quote
  #1982  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:37 AM
HKAllTheThings HKAllTheThings is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Newport
Posts: 576
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Reply With Quote
  #1983  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:39 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 669
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by newbieLA View Post
ah ok, thank you for the clarification. this is all a circus anyway, the fact they can appeal to a 3 judge panel, then a 9 judge panel etc etc. they can drag this out with endless taxpayer funds, but I'm glad the fight continues
En banc is actually 11 judges. Sydney Thomas+10 "randoms"
Reply With Quote
  #1984  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:42 AM
meanspartan's Avatar
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
En banc is actually 11 judges. Sydney Thomas+10 "randoms"
Yep. That's part of the problem. While we have some alright odds of getting 6 friendlies given the Ninth isn't quite as hard left as it used to be, we automatically start down 1-0 and have to get 6 of the remaining 10 spots.
Reply With Quote
  #1985  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:57 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,515
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meanspartan View Post
Yep. That's part of the problem. While we have some alright odds of getting 6 friendlies given the Ninth isn't quite as hard left as it used to be, we automatically start down 1-0 and have to get 6 of the remaining 10 spots.
The bigger problem is that the 10 other judges are chosen at "random", not at random. The quotes are important here.



The odds of flipping "heads" on a coin toss are infinitely better if nobody is watching you and you can keep flipping the coin until you get "heads".

The method by which Sydney Thomas "randomly" selects his panels is completely opaque, nobody knows how it is done, and AFAIK nobody oversees it to ensure true randomness or elimination of bias.
__________________
AW Reg. will likely be reopened summer '21 to those who weren't able to register by 7/18. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!

Last edited by CandG; 06-10-2021 at 11:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1986  
Old 06-10-2021, 11:24 AM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Different grid square
Posts: 1,531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
The method by which Sydney Thomas "randomly" selects his panels is completely opaque, nobody knows how it is done, and AFAIK nobody oversees it to ensure true randomness or elimination of bias.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/rules.htm#pID0E0YJ0HA

I'd concede that it's not as "transparent" as we'd perhaps prefer, but it isn't exactly a mystery. The clerk puts all the eligible Judge's names into a basket, then draws them out until there are 10. Some Judge (any Judge) watches.

Foolproof? No. Random? Yes, if the rules are followed. Subject to corruption? Of course, but so is every other part of the process. Worth risking a career on a single case about a single issue? Doubtful.
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #1987  
Old 06-10-2021, 12:57 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
That is just a notice to Benitez's court that says "we filed an appeal with the 9th". It isn't the actual appeal; the appeal itself hasn't been posted online yet.
Thanks! It will be interesting on what grounds they will claim to have standing on the appeal. Given the complacency of the CA9 on with the state, I wonder how weak of a reason it will be.
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #1988  
Old 06-10-2021, 1:01 PM
Full Clip's Avatar
Full Clip Full Clip is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Playa Vista, CA
Posts: 10,347
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HibikiR View Post
Question: If California loses with the 9th, then does that mean any state in the 9th's jurisdiction can expect freedom (or sue for it) from AW bans too?
No, it means CA will take it to SCOTUS before that happens.
No way d-bag Newsome will back off this.
__________________
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” — Robert A. Heinlein

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds” — Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #1989  
Old 06-10-2021, 2:12 PM
HibikiR HibikiR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: LA County
Posts: 2,001
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

How long does it usually take for the actual appeal doc to appear?
Reply With Quote
  #1990  
Old 06-10-2021, 2:13 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 840
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HibikiR View Post
Is an appeal a separate legal thing from an application for a stay?

Related, but separate. You can have an appeal underway without a stay of the underlying court’s decision.
Reply With Quote
  #1991  
Old 06-10-2021, 2:21 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 19,444
iTrader: 201 / 100%
Default

Here is the full press conference if you can stomach it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8hXfRniGhY


__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #1992  
Old 06-10-2021, 2:24 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,767
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There are some new documents filed. Case schedule and docket number it looks like.

9th circuit docket number 21-55608
Reply With Quote
  #1993  
Old 06-10-2021, 2:36 PM
Betfair39's Avatar
Betfair39 Betfair39 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Here is the full press conference if you can stomach it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8hXfRniGhY


lol she says judge is handpicked by NRA??? is this even legal in america to accuse judges and the 9th circuit like that?
Reply With Quote
  #1994  
Old 06-10-2021, 2:49 PM
California_Deplorable's Avatar
California_Deplorable California_Deplorable is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: everywhere
Posts: 4,774
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Here is the full press conference if you can stomach it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8hXfRniGhY


Haha, save it for the judge morons. I really hope we get a fair shake at SCOTUS but Im not holding my breath.
__________________
CRPA and NRA member.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 200Apples View Post
Civilization is four missed meals unwiped po0ps away from anarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibanezfoo View Post
And the lord appeared unto him and spoketh "tere henges". And he did knoweth in two weeks shall be the terrible boating accident whereas upon the mighty waves will the shoulder thing that goes up be lost beneath the sea. All rise. Sit down. Rise again. Sit down. Behold the non homo dancing. Amen
Reply With Quote
  #1995  
Old 06-10-2021, 3:24 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 669
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meanspartan View Post
Probably not going to matter actually. People are overlooking that Rupp v. Becerra is way ahead of this case. It already has been assigned a panel and has been briefed and argued. It's just stayed pending Duncan.

Presumably, Rupp will get decided first and be controlling on Miller.

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/californ...or-gun-owners/
Rupp is challenging different sections of the penal code. PC 30510, 30520, and 30925. Miller is challenging PC 30800, 30910, 30915, and 31000. They're completely different lawsuits.
Reply With Quote
  #1996  
Old 06-10-2021, 3:30 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,727
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
En banc is actually 11 judges. Sydney Thomas+10 "randoms"
I believe Sidney Thomas' term expires this year (7 year term as chief). It would then go to (by my calculation) Kim Wardlaw until 2024 when she turns 70 and is then barred by circuit rules. After that it goes to the younger Obama judges as all other appointees from Clinton and Bush will be too old.
So it looks like we'll be always spotting the other side 1 judge for all en banc cases for a while.
Reply With Quote
  #1997  
Old 06-10-2021, 4:29 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,427
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Here is the full press conference if you can stomach it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8hXfRniGhY


Was easy to stomach. Actually had me grinning on how full of BS they are. Of course, I am not subject to any of their BS.
Reply With Quote
  #1998  
Old 06-10-2021, 4:33 PM
HKAllTheThings HKAllTheThings is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Newport
Posts: 576
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Didn't realize until that video that Judge Benitez pulled the vaccine death equivalence thing.

You so crazy Beni
Reply With Quote
  #1999  
Old 06-10-2021, 4:35 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,095
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
[1] ... Hawaii just bans assault pistols. AR style rifles are not banned. [2] ... They are banned in CA if not registered and registration is closed. That is as close to a per se ban as I can imagine.

[1] ... OK my news source was lacking on the Hi ban. I admit I don't closely follow any AW stuff. But fully support any non prohibited person from having any damn thing they want.

[2] ... Ca is not quite banned. Even thought they call it that. Neutered ARs can still be legally bought/possessed, as long as it complies with "features".

It's all semantics. But the devil is in the details.
Reply With Quote
  #2000  
Old 06-10-2021, 4:54 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 840
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

9th Circuit docket/case number is 21-55608

Only docket entry is
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Rob Bonta and Luis Lopez Mediation Questionnaire due on 06/17/2021. Transcript ordered by 07/12/2021. Transcript due 08/10/2021. Appellants Rob Bonta and Luis Lopez opening brief due 09/20/2021. Appellees California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Wendy Hauffen, James Miller, PWGG, L.P., Ryan Peterson, John Phillips, Patrick Russ, Neil Rutherford, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Second Amendment Foundation and Adrian Sevilla answering brief due 10/20/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12140409] (RT) [Entered: 06/10/2021 11:52 AM]
There is a bunch of documents for that docket entry that are associated with any case opening. They are: Docketing Letter and Briefing Schedule, Notice to All Parties and Counsel, Mediation Letter, Mediation Questionnaire, and Case Opening Packet.
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 4:29 AM.




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