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
  #41  
Old 07-08-2022, 2:52 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 800
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

That’s a good brief. A pity that the relevant attorneys will be unlikely to be imprisoned for contempt of court. It does make you wonder what that guy knew to get himself removed from the case.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-27-2022, 10:47 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Dueling briefs submitted in response to supp. authority from NYSRPA (which the plaintiffs and respondents still call Bruen), and further request for a TRO.

If you want to see how Bonta and CADOJ are attempting to get around NYSRPA, here you go. They claim to still adhere to the two-step because the HT part of THT only applies if the text of 2A covers the activity. Clearly wrong, and plaintiff’s brief points this out.

Bonta continues to argue that new and unprecedented societal conditions and “reasonable” safety regulations are approved under NYSRPA, again taking SCOTUS out of context and depicting gun control as a long-standing historical American tradition.

It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic and attempting to stamp feet to continue status quo in the Ninth.

Have a read:

CADOJ:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.55.0.pdf


Does:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.56.0.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-27-2022, 12:09 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

My favorite line by the DOJ on page 11:

Contrary to the law challenged in Bruen, which effectively operated as a
prior restraint on the ability of most law-abiding citizens to “bear” “arms” outside the home, AB 173 only concerns data provided to firearms violence researchers under strict confidentiality protocols...


How can they even say that with a straight face now.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-27-2022, 12:16 PM
Dirtlaw Dirtlaw is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OC
Posts: 3,263
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post
My favorite line by the DOJ on page 11:

Contrary to the law challenged in Bruen, which effectively operated as a
prior restraint on the ability of most law-abiding citizens to “bear” “arms” outside the home, AB 173 only concerns data provided to firearms violence researchers under strict confidentiality protocols...


How can they even say that with a straight face now.
People say things like that when justice becomes a joke. I never took a bite of that apple. After taking the oath it "sometimes" happens.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-16-2023, 5:09 PM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Paso Robles, CA
Posts: 318
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

2A loss: Judge rules for the state. Gives plaintiffs until Feb. 10 to refile.
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-17-2023, 5:26 PM
ProfChaos's Avatar
ProfChaos ProfChaos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Folsom
Posts: 220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Burns noted that none of the exposed data came from the two research institutions at issue, and that the "speculative possibility of hacking or insider malfeasance" has not prevented gun owners in the past from purchasing weapons and providing their information to the state of California.
Its not about purchasing, but exposing private information. It was the state that compiled the information for the "research institutions" in the first place and they failed to secure it.
__________________
“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” -George Orwell 1984

1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a "How To" guide.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-21-2023, 12:05 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,906
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfChaos View Post
Its not about purchasing, but exposing private information. It was the state that compiled the information for the "research institutions" in the first place and they failed to secure it.
We need a plaintiff who wants to purchase a firearm without their PII being provided to an adversarial research organization without their consent but, of course, cannot do so.

The cat is out of the bag, so to speak, for existing gun owners.
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 2:20 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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