Doe(s) v. Bonta - Seeking Restraining Order Against AB-173: Dismissed 1-16-23

[Foothills]

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.

[Robotron2k84]

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

[Lanejsl]

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.

[Dirtlaw]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

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.

[hoystory]

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

[ProfChaos]

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.

[champu]

Originally Posted by ProfChaos

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.