WIESE v Becerra, Large Capacity mags - Alive again, 11-7-22

[curtisfong]

Now Wiese v Bonta

Order lifting stay of proceedings

10/19/2022 https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1666223156

status conference continued until January 17, 2023

11/4/2022 https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1667593919

[newbieLA]

What's the relevance?

[Inoxmark]

Why is this proceeding still? The main mag capacity case is in Benitez’ hands and we kinda know what ruling to expect from him. Nobody envisions a loss at this stage. Barred some catastrophic change of mind, the decision in Duncan case would be in our favor.
What is the point of dragging along another identical case in front of another judge with questionable outcome? Plaintiff’s inflated ego?

[swift]

Attorney fees?

[curtisfong]

No, there are still claims remaining which were stayed pending Duncan, then Bruen, which have now restarted.

[Paladin]

IIRC Benetez is hearing Duncan, Rhode and Miller on Dec 12. Will he hear Wiese that day too?

[Bhobbs]

I don’t think Wiese is being heard by Benitez.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I don’t think Wiese is being heard by Benitez.

correct. no happy forum shopping result for this case.

[Paladin]

Benitez will be busy enough on Dec 12: his 4th 2A case that day is Fouts (baton case).

[offrdmania]

No decisions made on the 12th. Its going to be months again before there is a possible ruling

[homelessdude]

About two or three probably. Far better than waiting years. JMO

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

status conference continued until January 17, 2023

11/4/2022 https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1667593919

Link to docket???

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Link to docket???

I don't follow this case, but maybe this one,

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ese-v-becerra/

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I don't follow this case, but maybe this one,

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ese-v-becerra/

THANK YOU!!!

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 01/13/23 VACATING the 01/17/23 Status Conference.

More delay….

[curtisfong]

Well. That's interesting

The court previously lifted the stay in this case after
the Supreme Court vacated the judgment in Duncan v. Bonta, No.
19-55376, and the Ninth Circuit remanded Duncan for further
proceedings consistent with New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n,
Inc. v Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). (Docket No. 116.) The
court notes that plaintiffs wish to move for summary judgment
forthwith without any discovery, while defendants seek expert and
fact discovery before the parties file cross motions for summary
judgment. (Docket No. 115.)
Having considered the parties’ positions, the court
will allow plaintiffs to file their motion for summary judgment
forthwith. The court will then consider request under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) after plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment has been filed, should defendants feel discovery
is necessary to respond to plaintiffs’ motion.
The January 17, 2023 status conference is hereby
VACATED.

[alowercaseq]

Not a delay, per se. Sounds like the judge struck middle ground preempting the need for that status conference. Still a chance it goes back to discovery after motion is filed, but gives plaintiffs an opportunity to tailor to avoid the need, if they choose.

[Dvrjon]

Plaintiffs (us): “Here are complete spreadsheets provided by defendant in another venue proving there is no Text, History or Tradition to support their position.”

Bonta:

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Plaintiffs (us): “Here are complete spreadsheets provided by defendant in another venue proving there is no Text, History or Tradition to support their position.”

Bonta:

^^^this^^^

[WithinReason]

So, what is likely to happen next?

[Bhobbs]

I’m surprised this case is moving forward at all with Duncan being ahead of it.

[BlueOvalBandit]

Some movement in this

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ese-v-becerra/

Honestly I had forgotten about this case. Washington Gun Law did a quick 6 min blurb video.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[gobler]

Originally Posted by BlueOvalBandit

Some movement in this

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ese-v-becerra/

Honestly I had forgotten about this case. Washington Gun Law did a quick 6 min blurb video.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

I was about to post WGL's video on this.. yeah, I blanked when he first mentioned this case..

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[Dvrjon]

Notice of Motion: July 10 Deadline.

…on July 10, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 5, 14th Floor of the United States District Court, [] 501 I Street, Sacramento, plaintiffs[]will and hereby move the Court for an order granting them summary judgement in their favor[]

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

[rman]

what is the current law?

[michigander]

The latest reply brief in support of motion for summary judgment was submitted last week: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1685635557

Seems well written to me. I think they backed the court into a corner by pointing to previous rulings that said magazine bans burden the second amendment. Hopefully the court can’t find a way to weasel out of it.

[NorthBay Shooter]

what about Duncan and Linton?

[tomrkba]

Originally Posted by michigander

The latest reply brief in support of motion for summary judgment was submitted last week: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1685635557

Seems well written to me. I think they backed the court into a corner by pointing to previous rulings that said magazine bans burden the second amendment. Hopefully the court can?t find a way to weasel out of it.

In Illinois, the judge just declared by fiat, under no basis in law and without any input from the plaintiffs, that their new AWB was just fine, totally hunky-dorrie, and completely and utterly constitutional in its banning of arms formerly protected by Heller and Bruen. But, a judge said it so it must be true!

So...I expect something similar in CA soon.

[Drivedabizness]

Go get'em Bill!!!!!

[chris]

Originally Posted by tomrkba

In Illinois, the judge just declared by fiat, under no basis in law and without any input from the plaintiffs, that their new AWB was just fine, totally hunky-dorrie, and completely and utterly constitutional in its banning of arms formerly protected by Heller and Bruen. But, a judge said it so it must be true!

So...I expect something similar in CA soon.

I'm pretty sure this moronic state will use that decision as precedent. Anything and everything to prevent this country's first AWB from being enjoined and unenforceable.