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

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Just to be clear, the district court has dismissed our Takings and Due Process claims, but not our Second Amendment claim.

So we will continue to litigate the remaining claim and appeal the dismissal of the other two upon completion of the entire case.

[Librarian]

Not that it is really new info for most of us, but Reason has a lay-person-accessible article on this case and Flanagan: http://reason.com/archives/2018/05/1...e-quietly-elim

Two new federal court decisions highlight a harsh new reality: California has effectively repealed the Second Amendment inside its borders.

...

The California Rifle and Pistol Association can, of course, appeal both cases. But everyone paying even the slightest bit of attention already knows what the outcome will be before the largely anti-gun 9th Circuit. And the Supreme Court will likely ignore the warnings from Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch and refuse to take the cases.

This is how the courts, quietly, one case at a time, without a vote, are making sure the Second Amendment simply will not apply within the state of California.

[Ford8N]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Not that it is really new info for most of us, but Reason has a lay-person-accessible article on this case and Flanagan: http://reason.com/archives/2018/05/1...e-quietly-elim

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Laying the framework for confiscation.

[Steve1968LS2]

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

Just to be clear, the district court has dismissed our Takings and Due Process claims, but not our Second Amendment claim.

So we will continue to litigate the remaining claim and appeal the dismissal of the other two upon completion of the entire case.

Thanks for the update Sean

[chris]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Not that it is really new info for most of us, but Reason has a lay-person-accessible article on this case and Flanagan: http://reason.com/archives/2018/05/1...e-quietly-elim

it has now been legal to legislate a Constitutional right out of existence.

Originally Posted by Ford8N

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Laying the framework for confiscation.

it will come under the Newsom governorship.

[colossians323]

Originally Posted by chris

it has now been legal to legislate a Constitutional right out of existence.





it will come under the Newsom governorship.

It has been this way in Calif for a couple of decades?

[chris]

Originally Posted by colossians323

It has been this way in Calif for a couple of decades?

yes I know this. The day it started is when Roberti-Roos was signed into law. But in reality it really began in sincere conviction was under Brown. Davis played a major role along with Arnie not doing his part to stop it either. Brown showed what I knew about him when the "right" people here said Brown wouldn't be that bad. Well he is and always was anti gun like DemoKrats are.

With Prop 63 in the victory column we will lose and continue to lose because the people here want to give up any right they deem not needed. The Second Amendment is first next will be free speech and it is under attack here already.

The people here do not care.

[Ford8N]

Originally Posted by chris

yes I know this. The day it started is when Roberti-Roos was signed into law. But in reality it really began in sincere conviction was under Brown. Davis played a major role along with Arnie not doing his part to stop it either. Brown showed what I knew about him when the "right" people here said Brown wouldn't be that bad. Well he is and always was anti gun like DemoKrats are.

With Prop 63 in the victory column we will lose and continue to lose because the people here want to give up any right they deem not needed. The Second Amendment is first next will be free speech and it is under attack here already.

The people here do not care.

And what is really pathetic the majority of California gun owners do not care either.

Screw this state and the sheep that LOVE it here. Surf n Ski Rules

[chris]

Originally Posted by Ford8N

And what is really pathetic the majority of California gun owners do not care either.

Screw this state and the sheep that LOVE it here. Surf n Ski Rules

Of course they don't they have that one handgun or shotgun they never use or maybe once a year. It doesn't affect them yet. It will and soon.

Gun owners on this very forum voted for Prop 63 and vote for anti gun Democrats because gun rights are at the very bottom of any issue they care about.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by chris

Gun owners on this very forum voted for Prop 63 and vote for anti gun Democrats because gun rights are at the very bottom of any issue they care about.

*COUGH*eXcision*COUGH*

[markdam]

im SOOOOOOOO infuriated 3@#%$%%^*$^%$*()&^ UCK

[Librarian]

Since I didn't see it in the thread, http://michellawyers.com/rupp-v-becerra/ is the Michel&Associates page for case documents.

[javalos]

Courts throughout the country so far are refusing to either hear anti-Second Amendment cases or are ruling against us. Very concerning, we are not being given our day in court even.

[Ford8N]

Originally Posted by javalos

Courts throughout the country so far are refusing to either hear anti-Second Amendment cases or are ruling against us. Very concerning, we are not being given our day in court even.

And the great pro gun President and NRA seem to only care about protecting the US gun manufacturers, just like the anti gun drones ramble about. Right now, Trump could recind all the previous anti gun E.O. and BATFE regulations of the anti gun Presidents before. BUT HE DOESN’T. I wonder why? Is Trump really a RINO? Silence.

[Uxi]

Getting back up to speed. Agree with the frustration. Most annoyed the second "Trifecta" of House, Senate and POTUS hasn't gotten the Hearing Protection Act done or removed arbitrary barrel lengths or dared to look at repeal of Hughes. Neither would really help us here in Ca, anyways, so it's mitigated somewhat... but what good are they except as a speed bump on the leftist tide?

About my last hope for peaceful restoration of the Constitution is Article V, though I continue to hope 9th Circus will be broken up and replaced with constitutionalists and that Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer will be replaced with Gorsuch style nominees before Trump's first term is over.

[wireless]

So are we looking at mid 2019 for oral argument? I couldn't figure out if that's at the circuit court or district court?

Does anyone know what other pending AWB cases are in the pipeline?

[CandG]

Anyone know if there's been any movement on this?

The last update on the Michel & Associates page was from 9/10/2018, which was an order to extend deadlines. In the time since that last update, the following deadlines (from that order) have lapsed:

-Fact Discovery Cut-off: October 11, 2018

-Last Day to Serve Initial Expert Reports: October 25, 2018

-Last Day to Serve Rebuttal Expert Reports: November 21, 2018

-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: December 20, 2018

-Last Day to File Motions (excluding DaubertMotions and all other Motions in Limine): February 8, 2019



Anyone know if those things got submitted? Or any other movement?

[Steve1968LS2]

Last time I heard from a lawyer was in August.. I just assume the wheels of justice move really slowly..

[wolfwood]

WHEREAS, both Parties expect to file motions for summary judgment on
March 25, 2019;
WHEREAS, the Parties have stipulated to a briefing and hearing schedule
that will provide them sufficient time to respond to each other’s motions and that
will accommodate the schedules of their respective counsel;
WHEREAS, the stipulated schedule would not alter the date of any event or
deadline already fixed by Court order or progress of the case; and
WHEREAS, for these reasons, good cause exists to adopt the briefing and
hearing schedule as stipulated by the Parties;
THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, AGREE, AND REQUEST:
That the Court enter the following briefing schedule for the Parties’ crosssummary judgment motions:
Motion and opening brief: March 25, 2019
Opposition brief: May 2, 2019
Reply brief: May 17, 2019
Hearing: May 31, 2019 at 10:30 a.m

[CandG]

^ Thanks!

[Shadowdrop]

Was there a hearing on 3/25?

[loganob831]

After that brief window of freedom we got for mags, now I’m energized and looking at other cases with hope and not negativity. This one is a massive one- the CA AWB needs to go.

Do you guys think that the recent mag ruling could bear well for us in this case? And how many more steps are there until we can expect a judgment? I saw that earlier this week an amicus brief was filed from an anti 2a org.

http://michellawyers.com/rupp-v-becerra

But I don’t know what that means in the scope of the overall case.

[tenemae]

I heard someone argue that we will be waiting for NYSRPA before anything else since we need direction from SCOTUS on what level of scrutiny to apply to 2A issues. It sounded convincing

[Steve1968LS2]

Originally Posted by Shadowdrop

Was there a hearing on 3/25?

From what I know everything is moving as stated in post 99

Fingers crossed that we are on a winning streak

[Maverick237]

Has there been any updates on the briefings made?

Will we find out the decision after the hearing in 5 days?

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by Maverick237

Has there been any updates on the briefings made?

Will we find out the decision after the hearing in 5 days?

Hearing is in five days.

This is at district court. Whatever happens, it will be appealed to the 9th circuit, and that could have many possible outcomes. We're at least a year away from a circuit court ruling. Probably two years away.

I don't know who this judge is, but if he's on our side, we could possibly have a situation like what happened with the one week of magazine freedom. And that would be great. All depends on the judge.

[arnoldd]

+1

[CandG]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Hearing is in five days.

This is at district court. Whatever happens, it will be appealed to the 9th circuit, and that could have many possible outcomes. We're at least a year away from a circuit court ruling. Probably two years away.

I don't know who this judge is, but if he's on our side, we could possibly have a situation like what happened with the one week of magazine freedom. And that would be great. All depends on the judge.

See post #59 in this thread, I did my best at analyzing the judge and her positions and likelihood for a ruling in our favor. In reality, it's anyone's guess... but if anyone is curious about some background on her, I tried to find what I could and post it there.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Hearing is in five days.

This is at district court. Whatever happens, it will be appealed to the 9th circuit, and that could have many possible outcomes. We're at least a year away from a circuit court ruling. Probably two years away.

I don't know who this judge is, but if he's on our side, we could possibly have a situation like what happened with the one week of magazine freedom. And that would be great. All depends on the judge.

We would need more than one week of freedom - there is the matter of a 10-day waiting period. I don't know if the 'bought' exception would apply to CA sales.

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

We would need more than one week of freedom - there is the matter of a 10-day waiting period. I don't know if the 'bought' exception would apply to CA sales.

How about "converted" though, kinda like unblocking a magazine

[tocino]

Originally Posted by ajb78

How about "converted" though, kinda like unblocking a magazine

Like converted SSE 2.0?

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by ajb78

How about "converted" though, kinda like unblocking a magazine

That is a possibility. How would owners of registered BBAWs 'prove' that they disabled the BB during the approximately 1 week period that an order would be in effect before being stayed pending appeal?

[Jericho261]

Wouldn’t it be funny if this lawsuit repealed all the assault weapon bans here in California. Such as the original Roberti-Roos assault weapons ban and the 1999 ban. Along with the 2016 bullet button ban.

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

That is a possibility. How would owners of registered BBAWs 'prove' that they disabled the BB during the approximately 1 week period that an order would be in effect before being stayed pending appeal?

Same way you 'prove' you unblocked your mags during that week.

ETA: I believe this challenges the whole of the AWCA, so if the court pulls a Benitez, lots of grip fins and mag lock devices would fall off during this hypothetical week also.

[Ishooter]

Subscribing...

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

See post #59 in this thread, I did my best at analyzing the judge and her positions and likelihood for a ruling in our favor. In reality, it's anyone's guess... but if anyone is curious about some background on her, I tried to find what I could and post it there.

Her answers on that questionnaire look great. She said clearly that the Constitution is a legal contract and personal policy preferences and empathy don't enter into it, any more than in any other contract. (Obama's wanting of judges who use empathy with various privileged / favored groups to make their ruling is pretty sad and I can't believe any members of disfavored groups (whites) voted for the guy.)

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

We would need more than one week of freedom - there is the matter of a 10-day waiting period. I don't know if the 'bought' exception would apply to CA sales.

It's very speculative how she could rule on this, and if she rules in our favor, how that would work. Fact is, the 9th circuit has repeatedly upheld AWB type laws, and she could say, I'm going to follow 9th circuit precedent and if that's not right, then they need to resolve it at the 9th circuit level, not at the district. IANAL but my impression is, that would be the correct ruling, because 9th circuit precedents, right or wrong, control the 9th circuit.

Don't get excited about a "freedom week", I think that's an unusual situation. Although it did happen with our magazine law, and Washington DC also had a partial freedom week of "constitutional carry" at one point IIRC. Would be cool if some district judge in Wyoming someday ruled that the BATF must accept new MG registrations and left it unstayed for a few days. Within 24 hours they would have a stack of thousands of new registrations. On the other hand, remember when the Peruta ruling made California shall-issue, and they didn't issue the mandate, so it had no effect? Yes I remember that too.

[SWalt]

Originally Posted by loganob831

After that brief window of freedom we got for mags, now I’m energized and looking at other cases with hope and not negativity. This one is a massive one- the CA AWB needs to go.

Do you guys think that the recent mag ruling could bear well for us in this case? And how many more steps are there until we can expect a judgment? I saw that earlier this week an amicus brief was filed from an anti 2a org.

http://michellawyers.com/rupp-v-becerra

But I don’t know what that means in the scope of the overall case.

All groups interested in the case can file a "friend of the Court" brief, pro or con. All of them are to inform the Court with arguments for or against the case at hand. The idea is for the Court to have a broader understanding of the issue and sway the court to their position.

[stix213]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

See post #59 in this thread, I did my best at analyzing the judge and her positions and likelihood for a ruling in our favor. In reality, it's anyone's guess... but if anyone is curious about some background on her, I tried to find what I could and post it there.

Her answers seem about as good as we could ever hope for from an Obama appointee.

[BBot12]

So today is a final hearing that will lead to summary judgement? Am I understanding that correctly?

[bruss01]

That's what I thought but narry a peep to be heard.