Rupp v Becerra (AWCA): 6-28-22 9th Vacates and remands to TC/DC

[eville]

=== CURRENT STATUS ===

6-28-22 NYSRPA having been released, 9th vacates ruling and remands

The district court’s judgment is vacated, and this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol ***’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ____ (2022). The parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. This order constitutes the mandate of this court. VACATED AND REMANDED.

12-6-21 held for NYSRPA - see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=554

7-26-20: Oral arguments before 9th circuit Pasadena, 10-8-20

8-31-19: appealed to 9th, https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-of-Appeal.pdf

See https://michellawyers.com/rupp-v-becerra/ for case docs

================================================== =====

Oops. Rupp v Becerra

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...ns-control-act

[IGORR]

Awesome, Happy Monday

[Kestryll]

I was just coming here to post this!

Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today announced it is supporting, along with the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), an important Second Amendment lawsuit challenging California’s newly expanded Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA).

The suit, Rupp v. Becerra, seeks to have the courts declare the AWCA unconstitutional because the ill-conceived law will do nothing to stop terrorists or violent criminals, and infringes on the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

...

[Kestryll]

Oh, and don't miss this part:

Multiple lawsuits challenging other aspects of the unconstitutional laws passed last year are also in the works and will be filed in the coming weeks. Rupp is the first of a number of NRA/CRPA sponsored lawsuits soon to be filed that will challenge the “gunmageddon” bills, as well as the new laws enacted by Proposition 63

This fight is just getting started.

[splithoof]

Folks, these lawsuits are not inexpensive to undertake. I will continue to support NRA & CRPA financially. Hope others do so as well.

[CalAlumnus]

Has anyone posted the filing yet? Interested in reading their actual argument.

[Bhobbs]

I'm interested to see how this goes, not that I have any faith in the courts to have anything resembling the honesty to rule correctly in this case. I'm sure the twisting and turning they do to rule against it will be fun to watch.

[Solidsnake87]

Any chance of getting to scotus during trumps first term?

[andytothemax]

Here is a copy of the complaint: http://www.andrewwatters.com/files/Rupp-v-Becerra.pdf

[Librarian]

Let's use this one, in the litigation forum, for specific case-related info.

The rest ought to go to the Politics and Activism thread, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1327871

ETA, I expect we'll need several paired threads in that arrangement...

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Link to Complaint: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/..._Complaint.pdf

[Librarian]

Court web site: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/
Southern Division is in Santa Ana.

What the suit requests:

Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
1. Enter a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that California Penal Code sections 30510(a), 30515(a)(1)(A-C), 30515(a)(1)(E-F), 30515(a)(3), 30520, 30600, 30605, 30925, and 30945, as well as California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 5499, are each unconstitutional facially and to the extent they apply to “assault weapons” or, alternatively, to the extent they prohibit any semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine having a “pistol grip,” “flash suppressor,” “thumbhole stock,” or “telescoping” stock, or any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that is over 26 inches in overall length, because such provisions unlawfully infringe on the right of the People to keep and bear arms that are in common use contemporarily, in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; arbitrarily deprive Plaintiffs of protected property interests und the Due Process Clause; and unconstitutionally take property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause;

2. Issue an injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents, and employees from enforcing any provisions of California Penal Code sections 30510(a), 3051 5(a)(1)(A-C), 3051 5(a)(1 )(E-F), 3051 5(a)(3), 30520, 30600, 30605, 30925, 30945, and California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 5499, prohibiting “assault weapons” or, alternatively, to the extent they prohibit the acquisition, possession, or transfer of any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine having a “pistol grip,” “flash suppressor,” “thumbhole stock,” or “telescoping” stock, or any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that is over 26 inches in overall length;

3. Award remedies available pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and all reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or any other applicable law; and

4. Grant any such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Solidsnake87

Any chance of getting to scotus during trumps first term?

Seems unlikely - since it starts in a US District Court, ordinarily it runs through a Circuit Court of Appeal - in this case the well-reviled 9th - past suit timings suggest around 2 years at each stage.

[splithoof]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Seems unlikely - since it starts in a US District Court, ordinarily it runs through a Circuit Court of Appeal - in this case the well-reviled 9th - past suit timings suggest around 2 years at each stage.

That would seem normal for this type of action; six to eight years taking into account delays, filings, hearings, enbanc panels, stonewalling, etc. Hopefully by the time it approaches the outer Galaxy of SCOTUS, the court will have changed in our favor. Good luck, but I will still contribute.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by splithoof

That would seem normal for this type of action; sixtyto eight years taking into account delays, filings, hearings, enbanc panels, stonewalling, etc.

Adjusted time frame a bit...

[wireless]

Looking forward to losing another one to the 9th.

[wolfwood]

this is actually good timing
by the time they are at the cert stage
Trump will get to appoint at least one more justice maybe more

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

This fight is just getting started.

I was starting to wonder if there was going to be any challenge to the over-reach that was foisted upon law-abiding CA residents last year.

[BAJ475]

A couple of questions. What about potential plaintiffs in the Eastern District of California either joining or filling their own suits?

In my situation, my son is presently prohibited from inheriting my BB AWs (9 total) as long as he is a California resident, even though he already has several BB AWs of his own and despite the fact that both of us have CA and NV CCWs, which goes a long way in proving that we are responsible law abiding residents of CA who are trusted to carry loaded firearms in public in this state.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

A couple of questions. What about potential plaintiffs in the Eastern District of California either joining or filling their own suits?

In my situation, my son is presently prohibited from inheriting my BB AWs (9 total) as long as he is a California resident, even though he already has several BB AWs of his own and despite the fact that both of us have CA and NV CCWs, which goes a long way in proving that we are responsible law abiding residents of CA who are trusted to carry loaded firearms in public in this state.

While filed in Orange County, this lawsuit seeks statewide relief. There is no need for a duplicative lawsuit in another district. Should we prevail here, those of you in the Eastern District would benefit just as much as everyone else.

[splithoof]

Originally Posted by wireless

Looking forward to losing another one to the 9th.

We know the drill. I expect any fruit from this to benefit my children. By that time I will likely no longer be driving, have dispersed my collection, and continue to support NRA and CRPA through donations.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by splithoof

We know the drill. I expect any fruit from this to benefit my children. By that time I will likely no longer be driving, have dispersed my collection, and continue to support NRA and CRPA through donations.

So would it be fair to say you are a "true believer", despite all the evidence to the contrary?

[Californio]

Very nice

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

Link to Complaint: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/..._Complaint.pdf

[JCHavasu]

This is excellent! Unfortunately the fight will be long I'm sure. It will have to go to the US Supreme Court to do us any good, as I don't see it going well within the 9th circuit. I would have loved to have my name on that document!

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by JCHavasu

This is excellent! Unfortunately the fight will be long I'm sure. It will have to to the US Supreme Court to do us any good, as I don't see it going well within the 9th circuit. I would have loved to have my name on that document!

Not coincidentally, the plaintiff is a Calgunner.

The complaint looks really good. Very sensible and logical. And therefore almost certain to be shot down by multiple US courts in California!

I guess it's heading for the SCOTUS!

[splithoof]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

So would it be fair to say you are a "true believer", despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Yes. I fully realize that this process may take a generation, or two on the outside. My hope is that a future SCOTUS will eventually hear 2A cases, and with the correct ideology may set our children free, so to speak. Sometimes it takes the most gross of violations by a governing body such as our legislature to finally spark action, and here we are. If the lawsuits we are discussing are resolved in our favor sooner than we expect, all the better; either way, I will continue to support financially NRA/ILA & CRPA, no matter where I reside. This is going to be an interesting two weeks. I fully expect the post count on this forum to set records.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by JCHavasu

This is excellent! Unfortunately the fight will be long I'm sure. It will have to to the US Supreme Court to do us any good, as I don't see it going well within the 9th circuit. I would have loved to have my name on that document!

Why would it have to go to SCOTUS to do us any good? If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't a district court win that goes un-appealed pretty much be the end of the AW ban right then and there?

That's what happened with Peruta - CA became effectively shall-issue (until the case was appealed to the 9th). In Sylvester, the second 10-day waiting period went away statewide after the district court win (also until it was appealed to the 9th).

Of course, it's wishful thinking that Becerra wouldn't appeal a loss. Of course he would. But in the rare event that he didn't, I think that would be the end of the case and we all win. Unless I'm missing something, which I very well might be.

If Becerra lost in the district court, and didn't appeal, but it didn't have any statewide bearing, then he would have very little motivation to try to win at the district court level. He could just give in and say "ok fine, Orange County you can have your assault weapons, but the rest of CA can't". But I don't think it works that way - I believe a district court decision has bearing on everyone who is affected by the laws that were challenged.

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Why would it have to go to SCOTUS to do us any good? If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't a district court win that goes un-appealed pretty much be the end of the AW ban right then and there?

A district or CA court win would of course eliminate the California ban, but it is unlikely to occur and in any case would not provide direct relief to people in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey or Massachusetts, all of which have paid-up NRA members.

It would be nice to see an early win, but I suspect that's not the game NRA-ILA are playing here.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Why would it have to go to SCOTUS to do us any good? If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't a district court win that goes un-appealed pretty much be the end of the AW ban right then and there?

That's a good one. It would be even faster if the legislators decided to remove the current laws from the penal code...

Both possibilities are about equally likely.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Mitch

It would be nice to see an early win, but I suspect that's not the game NRA-ILA are playing here.

Certainly not the end-game.

These are designed to go to SCOTUS and any lower level win would allow the other side to control whether the lawsuit moves up to the next level. That's why the challenge has to be VERY comprehensive. It must be such that it's a total defeat for the state should lower courts side with us, thus ensuring the state doesn't stop the process in the unlikely case they are in position to do so.

There are two realistic obstacles from the political courts: (1) Infinite delay, the way D.C. dragged their feet for years, and (2) Calculated injunction that lets us win, but prevents the case from going up, the way Lisa Madigan stopped Moore in CA-7.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by IVC

That's a good one. It would be even faster if the legislators decided to remove the current laws from the penal code...

Both possibilities are about equally likely.

haha, yep. I was just saying from a strictly procedural standpoint, that would be true. But I agree, it's never going to happen. We'd be more likely to hear that Newsom has decided to switch to the republican party.

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by IVC

These are designed to go to SCOTUS and any lower level win would allow the other side to control whether the lawsuit moves up to the next level.

On the other hand, remember Heller: it's hard to overestimate the arrogance and hubris of elected officials who have the entire state treasury at their disposal to fight the good fight. We would never have gotten the Heller decision if DC didn't insist on appealing their losses all the way to the top.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Mitch

On the other hand, remember Heller: it's hard to overestimate the arrogance and hubris of elected officials who have the entire state treasury at their disposal to fight the good fight. We would never have gotten the Heller decision if DC didn't insist on appealing their losses all the way to the top.

The district court actually dismissed the case, and our side appealed it. But on appeal, the DC circuit court did rule against DC, then DC petitioned for en banc, and lost again, and then they (stupidly, on their part) appealed again to SCOTUS, and as we all know, lost a 3rd time. They should have just cut their losses with the circuit court's ruling, but that's just not their M.O.

"Appeal until you can't appeal anymore, and then try to appeal it some more, until you win" is the way they tend to do things, no matter how minor the case.

[splithoof]

Originally Posted by Mitch

the arrogance and hubris of elected officials

A perfect descriptor. I can't imagine for one second that they would let their pet legislation be quashed without going to the absolute top. I could envision them even directing the state's sympathetic LE admin heads to disregard any SCOTUS ruling, because "they know what's best for California " in a rage of protest backed by an equally arrogant media. Crazy?....Look at the hiring of Eric Holder, the advancement of sanctuary cities/states, outward defiance, etc.
This is going to be a long road I think, and I really hope that the lawsuits filed get us there eventually.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Why would it have to go to SCOTUS to do us any good? If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't a district court win that goes un-appealed pretty much be the end of the AW ban right then and there?

Since when has *any* lower court win on our side gone unappealed?

Of course, it's wishful thinking that Becerra wouldn't appeal a loss. Of course he would. But in the rare event that he didn't, I think that would be the end of the case and we all win. Unless I'm missing something, which I very well might be.

Nope, you're not missing anything -- a district court win here would have statewide effect if it went unappealed. But what we're doing here is making predictions. Wishful thinking (unfortunately) makes for very poor predictions.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by splithoof

A perfect descriptor. I can't imagine for one second that they would let their pet legislation be quashed without going to the absolute top. I could envision them even directing the state's sympathetic LE admin heads to disregard any SCOTUS ruling, because "they know what's best for California " in a rage of protest backed by an equally arrogant media. Crazy?....Look at the hiring of Eric Holder, the advancement of sanctuary cities/states, outward defiance, etc.
This is going to be a long road I think, and I really hope that the lawsuits filed get us there eventually.

I'm optimistic. I, too, don't think this is going to be something that happens quickly, but it's the only way anyone is going to make a big difference. A ruling in our favor on this case would effectively make any law that arbitrarily bans 'arms in common use' unconstitutional.

The effects of that would be absolutely massive. It would not only nullify the arbitrary weapons bans currently on the books, but prevent new ones from being added. It's effects could even be as far-reaching as the handgun roster, suppressors, and magazines, even though those items aren't specifically called out in the suit.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by IVC

Certainly not the end-game.

These are designed to go to SCOTUS and any lower level win would allow the other side to control whether the lawsuit moves up to the next level. That's why the challenge has to be VERY comprehensive. It must be such that it's a total defeat for the state should lower courts side with us, thus ensuring the state doesn't stop the process in the unlikely case they are in position to do so.

There are two realistic obstacles from the political courts: (1) Infinite delay, the way D.C. dragged their feet for years, and (2) Calculated injunction that lets us win, but prevents the case from going up, the way Lisa Madigan stopped Moore in CA-7.

Which is why these types of cases will have a slim chance of winning, unless SCOTUS is blatantly pro 2a. The courts won't want to tear down long standing gun laws.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

The courts won't want to tear down long standing gun laws.

The bill of rights is over 225 years old, doesn't get much more long-standing than that. The AWCA is just a baby by comparison, at 28 years old.

Heck, Justice Reinhardt had been on the bench for almost a decade already when that law passed, and he's still there.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Unless the laws are over 225 years old... in which case they're fair game.

Taking away rights is what governments do best. Giving them back isn't one of their favorite things to do.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Taking away rights is what governments do best. Giving them back isn't one of their favorite things to do.

That's where the courts kick in.

Since we've reached the point of political courts, might as well have the current administration pack them with "living constitution," but full right leaning types. You know, the guys who can invent any gun right out of thin air the way leftist judges invent rights that suit their agenda.

We've seen with "nuclear option" that payback is a b!#@. Time to play the game in reverse and the court composition is more than favorable at the moment.