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

[Rail]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

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.

Yup. We're playing longball.

[wireless]

I love how each time a case comes up there is a new group of optimistic people thinking we have a chance... despite the fact that the court composition has not changed, the 9th has gone out of their way to make sure we lose, and the continual cert denial by SCOTUS on any 2A related issue.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by wireless

I love how each time a case comes up there is a new group of optimistic people thinking we have a chance... despite the fact that the court composition has not changed, the 9th has gone out of their way to make sure we lose, and the continual cert denial by SCOTUS on any 2A related issue.

You're right, we should just stop trying and let our legislature do whatever they want unopposed.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

You're right, we should just stop trying and let our legislature do whatever they want unopposed.

Agreed!

Or, you know, we can actually look for salvation in other places instead of sitting on our asses and thinking a bunch of lawyers in various places will save us.

But no, lobbying is too hard, threatening lawmakers with primary challenges and funding opponents costs something, and it doesn't let us complain like typical useless calgunners. And we should show our faulty math skills by continuing to count 5 votes (or was it 6? Someone was claiming a 6-3 advantage!) where they don't exist.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Agreed!

Or, you know, we can actually look for salvation in other places instead of sitting on our asses and thinking a bunch of lawyers in various places will save us.

But no, lobbying is too hard, threatening lawmakers with primary challenges and funding opponents costs something, and it doesn't let us complain like typical useless calgunners. And we should show our faulty math skills by continuing to count 5 votes (or was it 6? Someone was claiming a 6-3 advantage!) where they don't exist.

Why not both? We can lobby by day, and complain on calguns by night!

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Agreed!

Or, you know, we can actually look for salvation in other places instead of sitting on our asses and thinking a bunch of lawyers in various places will save us.

But no, lobbying is too hard, threatening lawmakers with primary challenges and funding opponents costs something, and it doesn't let us complain like typical useless calgunners. And we should show our faulty math skills by continuing to count 5 votes (or was it 6? Someone was claiming a 6-3 advantage!) where they don't exist.

There is one, and only one, path to liberty from the point we're at that doesn't involve politicians: violent revolution.

Everything else involves politicians. Going through the courts is just a more indirect way of going through politicians, since judges that sit on the courts are nominated by them. Legislation (obviously) involves politicians directly. And even an Article V Convention involves politicians (though at the state level).

So as much as the current court composition almost certainly will yield us nothing, the future court composition can. That future court composition is precisely what this lawsuit is banking on.

Is it a gamble? Of course. Everything is when it comes to convincing politicians to back your position. But that is the only type of gamble that's on the table. Every other path, short of violent revolution, leads to liberty's destruction. And the history of violent revolution is such that it, too, almost certainly leads to tyranny.

And only an Article V Convention or violent revolution will make it possible to put mechanisms into place that would bypass politicians for the purpose of protecting liberty.

[JCHavasu]

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 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.

You answered your own question with "...it's wishful thinking that Becerra wouldn't appeal a loss." We may get lucky and a judge would find in our favor, but the oligarchs would still appeal and eventually the ninth circuit would find against us, thus requiring it to get to the Supreme Court to do us any good.

Yes I agree in theory, that we could win at a lower court but do you really think Brown, and our next governor, Newsom, would let that stand without a fight?

Beyond that, we WANT a Supreme Court decision in our favor. That would effectively end this. A lower court ruling would still allow other districts to uphold this BS.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

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.

Is there basis to going to a CA and saying - we are challenging YOUR Circuit error - either fix it or we are going to SCOTUS"?

Seems like the obvious choice for those of us in 9CA - since we know precedent here will kill us or see us dismissed anyway

[tankarian]

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.

Originally Posted by wireless

I love how each time a case comes up there is a new group of optimistic people thinking we have a chance... despite the fact that the court composition has not changed, the 9th has gone out of their way to make sure we lose, and the continual cert denial by SCOTUS on any 2A related issue.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by IVC

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.

The only way the courts will actually help us is if they are completely gutted and filled with pro 2a justices. Even then, we have no idea how far they are willing to go. Actual freedom is terrifying to people.

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

You're right, we should just stop trying and let our legislature do whatever they want unopposed.

They are completely unopposed.

[Librarian]

Folks, let's try to keep the discussion-type posts over in the thread in Politics - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1327871 - and leave this one for things more closely related to court activity on this case.

A few posts moved to that thread.

[SWalt]

tag

[oc16]

like described above this case is designed for SCOUTS and not the 9th. if California flinches and realizes SCOUTS will destroy the ban they will need to rule in our favor even with a en bac. IF California is hell bent on saying no then SCOUTS will deal with it. I would also like to remind you that the word on the street is the moderate supreme court justice has announced his resignation during the summer thats another pro second judge on the panel.

[CandG]

At first I thought it was a typo but then you said it 2 more times



Just poking fun, I know it was probably auto-correct

[nicky c]

I was just reading the SCOTUS cert denial for Friedman v. Highland park and found it interesting to see what Scalia and Thomas had to say in their published cert denial dissent:

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409. Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id.,at 412. Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

Bolded portions are particularly relevant when considering the complaint raised in Rupp v. Becerra....

[wireless]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

You're right, we should just stop trying and let our legislature do whatever they want unopposed.

Hmm, can't seem to find a single word where I said stop trying.

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by nicky c

Bolded portions are particularly relevant when considering the complaint raised in Rupp v. Becerra....

Good catch, Nicky.

[kustomkat1950]

To me, it seems personal with Trump, 9th keeps blocking his immigrant ban, so he would like to disband it...there is a slight chance...sigh.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04...rt-of-appeals/

[CandG]

Just a little background on Hon. Josephine Staton, the judge assigned to this case. She was an Obama appointee. Here are her answers to the questions asked to her before her confirmation as a District Court judge: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo...ucker-QFRs.pdf.

This segment of Q&A, with questions asked by then-Senator Jeff Sessions is particularly notable:

As you may know, President Obama has described the types of judges that he will nominate to the federal bench as follows: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” What role do you believe that empathy should play in a judge’s consideration of a case?
Response: None. I believe that empathy is a character trait that may cause a judge to be more courteous and respectful in interacting with attorneys, litigants, jurors, witnesses, and staff. Empathy also may allow a judge to fully understand the facts presented by all parties. However, if empathy infects the judicial decisionmaking process, then the judge has failed to meet his or her responsibility of serving as a neutral, unbiased arbiter. Cases should be decided based solely on an objective consideration of the facts and an analysis of applicable law, unclouded by a sense of empathy.

Do you think that it’s ever proper for judges to indulge their own subjective sense of empathy in determining what the law means?
Response: No.
i. If so, under what circumstances?
Response: Please see my previous answer.

Do you think it is ever proper for judges to indulge their own values in determining what the law means?
Response: No.
a. If so, under what circumstances?
Response: Please see my previous answer.

Do you think it is ever proper for judges to indulge their own policy preferences in determining what the law means?
Response: No.
a. If so, under what circumstances?
Response: Please see my previous answer.

She's basically saying, "Obama wants me to have empathy - sure, I've got empathy, I guess. But don't expect me to use it when I rule on cases."


Also, this segment, questions asked by then-Senator Tom Coburn:

Some people refer to the Constitution as a “living” document that is constantly evolving as society interprets it. Do you agree with this perspective of constitutional interpretation?
Response: I have never referred to the Constitution as a “‘living’ document that is constantly evolving,” and I do not agree with that perspective. I believe that the Constitution is an immutable document establishing rights, principles, obligations and relationships, and that the courts must apply it to a changing society. The Constitution should be interpreted by a district court judge with reference to its language and to the decisions of higher courts.

In your view, is it ever proper for judges to rely on contemporary foreign or international laws or decisions in determining the meaning of the Constitution?
Response: No.

Would you consider foreign law when interpreting the Eighth Amendment? Other amendments?
Response: Please see my previous answer.

She did issue a TRO against Trump's travel ban. On the other hand, she has never ruled against the constitution as far as I can find. I'm not aware of any 2a cases that have come before her.

[CAL.BAR]

Originally Posted by wireless

I love how each time a case comes up there is a new group of optimistic people thinking we have a chance... despite the fact that the court composition has not changed, the 9th has gone out of their way to make sure we lose, and the continual cert denial by SCOTUS on any 2A related issue.

Sadly have to agree with you on this one. CA AW laws have already been challenged and even with Scalia on the bench, they were summarily shot down in the lower courts and not picked up by SCOTUS.

Hell, we can't even get traction on the roster cases and those involve pistols and we have been banned from any new pistols for over a decade!

[CandG]

Originally Posted by CAL.BAR

Hell, we can't even get traction on the roster cases and those involve pistols and we have been banned from any new pistols for over a decade!

Not that it makes it any less outrageous, but just as a matter of fact, it's "only" been 4 years

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...013-BOF-03.pdf

[BAJ475]

Answering my own question. A first amended complaint was filed and served on Sept. 11, 2017. It appears that no answer or response has been filed. Would be nice if someone would post a brief summary of the changes in the complaint. Anything of substance or merely fix typos?

[BAJ475]

There is now a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Taking and Due Process Claims. It would be nice if pdf copies of these pleadings were posted here, so that we could follow along.

[CandG]

No updates on this one since November? This is one of the most important 2A cases California has ever seen, surprised nobody's really talking about it.

[Librarian]

Here's a site with docket info - https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/35...becerra-et-al/, but it's $99/month to see anything.

Here's a better: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/..._Becerra_et_al

order Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held - Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings - Terminate Hearings Tue 3:36 PM
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Josephine L. Staton:

On the Courts own motion, the Scheduling Conference set for hearing December 22, 2017 is VACATED and taken off calendar. The Final Pretrial Conference is set for 12/21/2018 at 1:30 p.m. See document for further dates and details. (tg)

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Here's a site with docket info - https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/35...becerra-et-al/, but it's $99/month to see anything.

Here's a better: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/..._Becerra_et_al

Interesting, thanks. So the case got delayed by a year?

[nick]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Interesting, thanks. So the case got delayed by a year?

Yup. It's not an important case, as far as the liberal courts are concerned.

[USMCmatt]

Finally read the whole complaint...not experienced here in legal issues, but seemed well written and "barney style" explained to me.

[wolfwood]

loss
link to order
https://www.scribd.com/document/3788...Beccerra-Order

[spegull03]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

loss
link to order
https://www.scribd.com/document/3788...Beccerra-Order

page 12 says the San Bernardino terrorists used bullet button weapons during the attack and tied that to the reason for SB880 and a legitimate government objective.

I don't recall hearing they used AR-15's with bullet buttons attached and couldn't find anything that supported that argument. Or are they saying because they bought a BB rifle then removed the BB, its the same as using a BBAW?

[CandG]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

loss
link to order
https://www.scribd.com/document/3788...Beccerra-Order

Interesting, I thought this case was on hold until December


From the order:

Plaintiffs may amend their complaint as to the Takings and Due Process Clause claims only to the extent that they can allege facts related to the ripeness and standing of an as-applied challenge and to the extent they can do so consistent with their obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Any amendments must be made with twenty-one (21) days of this order.

I don't know what that means, though, I can't read legal-ese. I wonder what the next course of action is - appeal this order, or amend the complaint?

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Interesting, I thought this case was on hold until December


From the order:


I don't know what that means, though, I can't read legal-ese. I wonder what the next course of action is - appeal this order, or amend the complaint?

I see an amendment on the horizon unless the they really want the 2a claim (which is dead at the trial court per this ruling) to get heard by the Ninth as soon as possible

[CandG]

Without the 2a claim, I'm not sure what legs this case would have. Seems like registration (grandfathering) makes a 5a challenge rather difficult.

[Steve1968LS2]

Email I just received told me the bad new... well, at least I can officially say "I tried" lol

Maybe they can come up with a plan to move forward

Smart people are working on this, so I'm still hopeful.

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by Steve1968LS2

Email I just received... well, at least I can officially say "I tried" lol

Maybe they can come up with a plan to move forward

Either way it takes a lot of guts to put your name out there like that. You are a real patriot.

[readysetgo]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Either way it takes a lot of guts to put your name out there like that. You are a real patriot.

This.

Thank you Steve1968LS2!

Thank you CRPA!

F you, so called "justice" system!

[Ford8N]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Either way it takes a lot of guts to put your name out there like that. You are a real patriot.

I agree.

So now what?

[Steve1968LS2]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Either way it takes a lot of guts to put your name out there like that. You are a real patriot.

Well.. Michael and Assoc did all the heavy lifting.. and there were other people on the complaint, my name was just picked for top billing.

It's frustrating how long these cases drag out.. I think the left knows they can do any nonsense they want and it will take YEARS to move through the courts.

Thankfully we got an injunction on the magazine case.. The lawyers are formulating a plan to push forward, but this was very disappointing.

[Steve1968LS2]

Originally Posted by Ford8N

I agree.

So now what?

Wait while the smart lawyer people along with the CRPA and NRA figure out how to move forward.

Giving up isn't really an option.

[Battosai1]

Originally Posted by Steve1968LS2

Wait while the smart lawyer people along with the CRPA and NRA figure out how to move forward.

Giving up isn't really an option.

i hate sitting on our butt tactics....