Effect of Bruen on old cases like Pena

[robt_sf]

Does the win on Bruen have any legal effect on prior decisions like Pena vs Cid?

[f80vm]

My understanding is that a new lawsuit will be required to challenge the roster under the rules set by the supreme court.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by f80vm

My understanding is that a new lawsuit will be required to challenge the roster under the rules set by the supreme court.

Right; old rights cases stay closed.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Right; old rights cases stay closed.

I hope you are wrong, because what then happens? If a plaintiff challenges a denial of a CCW on the ground of a failure to demonstrate "good cause" in excess of wishing to exercise the right to bear arms for self defense, the state will never appeal. Without an appeal there can be no precedent and no published opinion. Only if the state wins, can there be an appeal, and the state won't file an appeal. I know next to nada about the Federal system, but wonder if instead of filing in state court a decaratory judgment of a writ of mandate should be sought in District Court and if an injuction can be sought directing all state officers to comply with the ruling in BRUEN; to cease requiring a showing of good cause.

Just wondering if the writ for an injunction is filed in District Court and denied, can an appeal be immediately filed to the 9th Circuit and then can certiorari be immediatly sought with SCOUTUS under its Rule 11.

[stoogescv]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

I hope you are wrong, because what then happens? If a plaintiff challenges a denial of a CCW on the ground of a failure to demonstrate "good cause" in excess of wishing to exercise the right to bear arms for self defense, the state will never appeal. Without an appeal there can be no precedent and no published opinion. Only if the state wins, can there be an appeal, and the state won't file an appeal. I know next to nada about the Federal system, but wonder if instead of filing in state court a decaratory judgment of a writ of mandate should be sought in District Court and if an injuction can be sought directing all state officers to comply with the ruling in BRUEN; to cease requiring a showing of good cause.

Just wondering if the writ for an injunction is filed in District Court and denied, can an appeal be immediately filed to the 9th Circuit and then can certiorari be immediatly sought with SCOUTUS under its Rule 11.

Librarian is not saying we are out of luck. He's saying the old case doesn't get revived. For Pena v Cid, someone will have to file a new case challenging the roster on the basis of the new decision in NYSRPA v Bruen. It will start in the District Court, then probably get appealed to 9th Circuit, then go to Supreme Court. For a CCW applicant, if you are denied for good cause, you can file in District Court. If you win, you win. If you lose, you can appeal. Again, if you win, you win. If you lose, you can petition for cert to the Supreme Court. I doubt any county is going to be denying applications on the basis of good cause from now on.

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by stoogescv

Librarian is not saying we are out of luck. He's saying the old case doesn't get revived. Someone will have to file a new case challenging the roster on the basis of the new decision in NYSRPA v Bruen. It will start in the District Court, then probably get appealed to 9th Circuit, then go to Supreme Court.

In the 9th, all gun cases tend to go en banc as well. Gives the root lickers more time to delay our rights.

[TruOil]

Old cases that have published opinions may be overruled or criticized. Peruta has a published opinion that says there is no RIGHT to a CCW. Bruen says that there IS a right to carry, but that the state may license the practice under a shall issue law, i.e., there IS a right to a CCW. So Peruta is dead as of this very moment.

Young v. Hawaii is technically still open since it is still pending before the Supreme Court. However, the Ninth ruled that there was no RIGHT to bear arms outside of one's own house/property. Undoubtedly the cert. petition will be granted and the en banc decision summarily reversed with instruction to reconsider in light of Bruen. The decision in the Ninth MUST be to rule that Young has a right to bear arms outside the home for self defense (or defense against the wild boar that want to eat him), and that Hawaii's ban on issuance of licenses to civilians is unconstitutional. This shall soon come to pass.

Bruen says nothing about arms, hinting that regulations on arms may be permissible, but not ruling on the issue at all. Those challenges are pending cert., and we will know soon enough whether the Court will take any of those cases. Meanwhile, all the existing cases on bump stocks, assault weapons, etc. remain good law at this point in time. Even if one or more of those cases is taken up, we will not know the outcome for another year. So you may as well go bowling and drinking in the mountains with the elves.

[flyer898]

I mentioned this a long time ago while NYSRPA was pending: the most important thing we are going to get is a standard of review. We got one! It can be applied now to pending cases. There are always new victims of the government's continuing abuse in this area, and new bases for lawsuits. Thus, a great many opportunities to apply the new standard.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Old cases that have published opinions may be overruled or criticized. Peruta has a published opinion that says there is no RIGHT to a CCW. Bruen says that there IS a right to carry, but that the state may license the practice under a shall issue law, i.e., there IS a right to a CCW. So Peruta is dead as of this very moment.

Young v. Hawaii is technically still open since it is still pending before the Supreme Court. However, the Ninth ruled that there was no RIGHT to bear arms outside of one's own house/property. Undoubtedly the cert. petition will be granted and the en banc decision summarily reversed with instruction to reconsider in light of Bruen. The decision in the Ninth MUST be to rule that Young has a right to bear arms outside the home for self defense (or defense against the wild boar that want to eat him), and that Hawaii's ban on issuance of licenses to civilians is unconstitutional. This shall soon come to pass.

Bruen says nothing about arms, hinting that regulations on arms may be permissible, but not ruling on the issue at all. Those challenges are pending cert., and we will know soon enough whether the Court will take any of those cases. Meanwhile, all the existing cases on bump stocks, assault weapons, etc. remain good law at this point in time. Even if one or more of those cases is taken up, we will not know the outcome for another year. So you may as well go bowling and drinking in the mountains with the elves.

While Bruen says nothing about arms, it did provide a framework for analyzing 2A claims. So the arms cases that did not follow this framework could easily be dealt with with a grant, vacate and remand for reconsideration in light of Bruen.

[M1A Rifleman]

Would the ruling effect Executive Orders the same way, ie, lawsuit to over turn? Like to end Bush #1 ammo and import ban as well as the act of 1968. Hope this would allow $200 Russian SKS rifles and ammo back.

[stoogescv]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Old cases that have published opinions may be overruled or criticized. Peruta has a published opinion that says there is no RIGHT to a CCW. Bruen says that there IS a right to carry, but that the state may license the practice under a shall issue law, i.e., there IS a right to a CCW. So Peruta is dead as of this very moment.

Young v. Hawaii is technically still open since it is still pending before the Supreme Court. However, the Ninth ruled that there was no RIGHT to bear arms outside of one's own house/property. Undoubtedly the cert. petition will be granted and the en banc decision summarily reversed with instruction to reconsider in light of Bruen. The decision in the Ninth MUST be to rule that Young has a right to bear arms outside the home for self defense (or defense against the wild boar that want to eat him), and that Hawaii's ban on issuance of licenses to civilians is unconstitutional. This shall soon come to pass.

Bruen says nothing about arms, hinting that regulations on arms may be permissible, but not ruling on the issue at all. Those challenges are pending cert., and we will know soon enough whether the Court will take any of those cases. Meanwhile, all the existing cases on bump stocks, assault weapons, etc. remain good law at this point in time. Even if one or more of those cases is taken up, we will not know the outcome for another year. So you may as well go bowling and drinking in the mountains with the elves.

Please provide contact info for the elves.

[sbo80]

Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman

Would the ruling effect Executive Orders the same way, ie, lawsuit to over turn? Like to end Bush #1 ammo and import ban as well as the act of 1968. Hope this would allow $200 Russian SKS rifles and ammo back.

I doubt you'll find any court, even this SCOTUS, to draw a connection between 2A and international trade regulations/restrictions. And since this ruling didn't directly address which arms, we're left with the language in Heller, that clearly says some "dangerous" things can be prohibited. I don't think that's enough to clearly have the NFA, or '68 GCA overturned on Bruen alone.

[natman]

Originally Posted by f80vm

My understanding is that a new lawsuit will be required to challenge the roster under the rules set by the supreme court.

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status...021576/photo/1
The CA AG has already advised that "good cause" is no longer a criteria in issuing a CCW. He does go on at length about "good moral character", so it remains to be seen how that will play out.

[baggss]

Originally Posted by natman

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status...021576/photo/1
The CA AG has already advised that "good cause" is no longer a criteria in issuing a CCW. He does go on at length about "good moral character", so it remains to be seen how that will play out.

It will play out exactly as any subjective assessment in regards to firearms would in Ca. The Sheriffs that issue will continue to issue, the ones that didn't will use this as the next roadblock. ANYTHING they deem objectionable that comes up in background check can be uses to deny you for GMC, the definition is completely arbitrary.

That being said, even agencies that issue readily, like mine, use the GMC to "weed out the undesirables" from the process. Any agency that didn't already issue for simple "Self Defense" will now use this and the hurdle for to be overcome. The upside is that you wont have to write 20 paragraphs explaining why you have good morals, they'll do that for you. The downside is you don't have the opportunity to write 20 paragraphs to explain why you have good morals, they'll do that for you.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

While Bruen says nothing about arms, it did provide a framework for analyzing 2A claims. So the arms cases that did not follow this framework could easily be dealt with with a grant, vacate and remand for reconsideration in light of Bruen.

Bruen went to great lengths to highlight the parts of Heller we've all been relying on (without success in the 9CA because of the "2A Two-Step")

The Two-Step is now categorically struck down.

Clear guidance has been given on the Constitutionality test.

"Common use" was also highlighted in Bruen. I see the Roster folding soon - it cannot and never could be upheld by anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity and fealty to the Constitution.

[librarian72]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

I see the Roster folding soon - it cannot and never could be upheld by anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity and fealty to the Constitution.

So, you are saying that the 9th circuit will keep the roster in place....

[abinsinia]

In the Pena case the judge stopped at step 1 , he claimed the roster did not burden the 2nd amendment. I thing I recall reading the decision and being sadden by how stupid the judge was.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by librarian72

So, you are saying that the 9th circuit will keep the roster in place....

How?

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

How?

"As long as one pistol remains on the roster, it does not prevent anyone from buying a pistol. Furthermore, it is up to the firearms industry to insure they continue to make safe pistols, and they should be prohibited from selling unsafe firearms anyway." FGG said this is valid, and he's the expert.

[cleonard]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

"As long as one pistol remains on the roster, it does not prevent anyone from buying a pistol. Furthermore, it is up to the firearms industry to insure they continue to make safe pistols, and they should be prohibited from selling unsafe firearms anyway." FGG said this is valid, and he's the expert.

Did United States maintain a list of so called safe weapons in 1791 or 1868? The answer is no and therefore the roster is unconstitutional. End of analysis. The arguments you list are not valid arguments to make is any way shape or form. It ends with the historical analysis.

Judges have their hands severely tied by Thomas's opinion. He shutdown the normal legal gymnastics. We will see if they can come up with unanticipated circumventions.


Sent from my moto g stylus 5G using Tapatalk

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by cleonard

It ends with the historical analysis.

The 9th circuit will claim the sun sets in the east until SCOTUS instructs them otherwise, verbatim, word for word.

[press1280]

I would think these "intermediate scrutiny" cases would effectively be overruled to the point where a district judge can enter a contradictory opinion on it since we are sort of on a blank slate. But I guess we'll find out soon.

[5literford]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

The 9th circuit will claim the sun sets in the east until SCOTUS instructs them otherwise, verbatim, word for word.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-c...153527772.html

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Old cases that have published opinions may be overruled or criticized. Peruta has a published opinion that says there is no RIGHT to a CCW. Bruen says that there IS a right to carry, but that the state may license the practice under a shall issue law, i.e., there IS a right to a CCW. So Peruta is dead as of this very moment.

Young v. Hawaii is technically still open since it is still pending before the Supreme Court. However, the Ninth ruled that there was no RIGHT to bear arms outside of one's own house/property. Undoubtedly the cert. petition will be granted and the en banc decision summarily reversed with instruction to reconsider in light of Bruen. The decision in the Ninth MUST be to rule that Young has a right to bear arms outside the home for self defense (or defense against the wild boar that want to eat him), and that Hawaii's ban on issuance of licenses to civilians is unconstitutional. This shall soon come to pass.

Bruen says nothing about arms, hinting that regulations on arms may be permissible, but not ruling on the issue at all. Those challenges are pending cert., and we will know soon enough whether the Court will take any of those cases. Meanwhile, all the existing cases on bump stocks, assault weapons, etc. remain good law at this point in time. Even if one or more of those cases is taken up, we will not know the outcome for another year. So you may as well go bowling and drinking in the mountains with the elves.

Eau contraire: Bruen further defines the 2A and NOT just in regards to bear outside the home. More specifically it provides guidance on review of 2A - not just CCW cases. You might want to review and rethink.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

"As long as one pistol remains on the roster, it does not prevent anyone from buying a pistol. Furthermore, it is up to the firearms industry to insure they continue to make safe pistols, and they should be prohibited from selling unsafe firearms anyway." FGG said this is valid, and he's the expert.

Does FGG even post here any more? Not gonna lie - he made me mad but he also made A LOT of valid points about the mismanagement of the self-appointed (and not based on any apparent merits to me) "smart" / "right" people who led us to so many defeats post OLL. Fabio sagely called out the deficits in the arguments. Did he disappear?

[tocino]

Was curious, does Bruen potentially affect out of state private party sales or are we still stuck only buying between Californians?

[FreshTapCoke]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Does FGG even post here any more? Not gonna lie - he made me mad but he also made A LOT of valid points about the mismanagement of the self-appointed (and not based on any apparent merits to me) "smart" / "right" people who led us to so many defeats post OLL. Fabio sagely called out the deficits in the arguments. Did he disappear?

He added to the NYSRPA v Bruen thread.

Originally Posted by tocino

Was curious, does Bruen potentially affect out of state private party sales or are we still stuck only buying between Californians?

Not now but theoretically in the future it could. I'm of the opinion it can even eliminate FFLs altogether.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Does FGG even post here any more? Not gonna lie - he made me mad but he also made A LOT of valid points about the mismanagement of the self-appointed (and not based on any apparent merits to me) "smart" / "right" people who led us to so many defeats post OLL. Fabio sagely called out the deficits in the arguments. Did he disappear?

Goes both ways - FGG was right because the system was/is corrupt and he understood it enough to the point where he could peddle his "legal expertise" to match how the courts ended up ruling. Looked like a genius at the time.

Post-Bruen technically nothing changed - Heller still says what it always has and McDonald still incorporates 2A against the states. The only real effect is that Bruen stops the judicial rebellion. Suddenly, FGG-s legal opinions are all losing propositions and are proven wrong. Doesn't look like a genius anymore.

Both sides in the early post-Heller battles underestimated the political aspect of the courts and how the personal hostility of judges against guns and gun culture would affect the outcome of 2A cases. If FGG pointed out that the courts would *misinterpret* Heller because of their personal beliefs and that a case like Bruen would be needed and would eventually come, then FGG would still look like a genius. But because he based his "superior opinions" on legal arguments, the moment those legal arguments are invalidated by the SCOTUS he loses credibility. He's now just one of the cogs in the system that is on the losing side (at this time) and his opinions are that of the dissent in Bruen.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Does FGG even post here any more?...

Yes, he reappeared just recently.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by FreshTapCoke

He added to the NYSRPA v Bruen thread.



Not now but theoretically in the future it could. I'm of the opinion it can even eliminate FFLs altogether.

Such a dreamer. Bruen does not directly apply to the California roster. It is an open question as to whether the test enunciated in Bruen will apply to firearms as opposed to only the right to keep or bear; the 2A is nonspecific as to whether we have a right to bear any and all arms out there.

Meanwhile, there is no ban on buying Rostered handguns from out of state, plus any long guns that do not fall within the definition of "assault weapons." I think the ban on silencers and NFA items will continue and be upheld. Nor do I see FFLS being eliminated; the government still has a right to prevent guns from being sold to felons and the adjudicated mentally ill, and thus it is hard to conceive of a legal basis for eliminating the 4473.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Bruen does not directly apply to the California roster. It is an open question as to whether the test enunciated in Bruen will apply to firearms as opposed to only the right to keep or bear; the 2A is nonspecific as to whether we have a right to bear any and all arms out there.

The court also GVR-ed two cases that deal with "arms" which are part of the "plain text of 2A" - the MD AWB and CA large capacity magazine ban.

If it was an open question the way you suggest, the court would've simply denied the cert in those "arms-related" cases, not granted and vacated the decision. Why vacate a decision that upholds AWB and another that upholds magazine capacity limit if it is "an open question?"

The two circuit courts follow your suggestion and we'll be back at SCOTUS in no time with an actual decision that's going to be even stronger than Bruen. It would be true judicial rebellion.

[f80vm]

In Renna v Becerra, the part of the lawsuit challenging the roster was dismissed while the challenge to the "3 for 1" rule was allowed to proceed. I wonder if the dismissal can now be appealed in light of Bruen, effectively making Renna, Pena 2.0.

[JiuJitsu]

Originally Posted by f80vm

In Renna v Becerra, the part of the lawsuit challenging the roster was dismissed while the challenge to the "3 for 1" rule was allowed to proceed. I wonder if the dismissal can now be appealed in light of Bruen, effectively making Renna, Pena 2.0.

I really hope the part of the roster case that was dismissed can be reinstated as part of this current case since 1) the part that was dismissed was previously decided using incorrect intermediate scrutiny criteria and not allowable per the recent Bruen decision so therefore IMO very much remains a valid legal challenge, and 2) this is an ACTIVE case so why couldn't they simply reinstate it if it was incorrectly dismissed in light of Bruen.

I guess we'll see what happens next. But I know that one of the top priorities of the CRPA and other 2A organizations is going after the stupid and unconstitutional roster.

So even if this part of the current roster case is not reinstated I guarantee another new lawsuit will be filed quickly. Hopefully we will see a lot more injunctions against these clearly now-unconstitutional laws while we wait years for the courts to restore our rights. A right delayed is a right denied and law-abiding gun owners have suffered long enough here in CA.

[IVC]

Again, the case that is "finalized" cannot be resurrected even if the reasoning changed significantly. Only pending cases will be affected. Anything else will require filing another lawsuit (which won't be difficult now).

[JiuJitsu]

Originally Posted by IVC

Again, the case that is "finalized" cannot be resurrected even if the reasoning changed significantly. Only pending cases will be affected. Anything else will require filing another lawsuit (which won't be difficult now).

I'm talking about Renna vs Bonta (Roster case #2), which is currently active. I am not talking about resurrecting Pena vs Lindley (Roster case #1, which we lost at the 9th). I would hope an active case could be updated to revisit the part of it that was thrown out by the judge since Bruen made it quite relevant again. Or maybe I'm just being too optimistic. Or it will be requested/revisited again on appeal.

Either way, that roster will not hold up in court eventually.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by IVC

Looked like a genius at the time.

If the refs are corrupt, I never understood how predicting how the same corrupt refs might call a game is even remotely "genius".

Doesn't look like a genius anymore.

He's still smart. I just wish he was more honest and willing to admit how broken the system is.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Such a dreamer. Bruen does not directly apply to the California roster. It is an open question as to whether the test enunciated in Bruen will apply to firearms as opposed to only the right to keep or bear; the 2A is nonspecific as to whether we have a right to bear any and all arms out there.

...snip

What about firearms that are in common use outside of CA? Plenty of un-rostered pistols are in common use outside of CA. Glock 19 Gen 5s come to mind.

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

What about firearms that are in common use outside of CA? Plenty of un-rostered pistols are in common use outside of CA. Glock 19 Gen 5s come to mind.

I don't think that any court outside the 9th Circus has defined what "common use" is. Right now I suspect the courts would stick with the idea that considering what SCOTUS has said about "dangerous" weapons that a handgun safety roster is OK. And whether a firearm is in common use may hinge on type rather than on brand.

So a Gen 5 Glock is a semi-automatic pistol. As long as there is a semi-automatic pistol on the Kalifornia roster then the roster is OK.

I'm not a legal scholar but I don't think that the SCOTUS has said anything at all which would invalidate that specious logic.

I think that there are something like 800 handguns on the roster at this time. A lot of the differences are cosmetic so that isn't a good reflection of the reality.

What I'm wondering, however, is whether the diversity of the available handguns is enough to pass muster with the right plaintiff(s).

My wife has small hands. The pistols I use are just too darned big for her to properly fire because when she holds them properly her finger doesn't reach the trigger. So back when you could do the SSE we got her a Gen 4 Glock G42. You can't get that one anymore and I don't know whether there are other pistols on the roster which will fit her hand. If not, then we could find someone else with small hands and have a better shot at dumping the roster.

Failing something like that I'm actually not optimistic about getting rid of the roster any time soon. I'm not arguing that the courts should keep doing what they have been doing, just that I'm not at all confident that the SCOTUS will stomp on the roster unless it can be demonstrated that we have a plaintiff who cannot get a handgun off the roster which is functional for them.

Hoping my pessimism is not realism.

We actually need the right plaintiff(s) in the right circumstance.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by natman

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status...021576/photo/1
The CA AG has already advised that "good cause" is no longer a criteria in issuing a CCW. He does go on at length about "good moral character", so it remains to be seen how that will play out.

IIRC, wasn't there a long discussion about what "Good Moral Character" is in relationship to State & Local Government employees?