WIESE v Becerra, Large Capacity mags - Alive again, 11-7-22

[Librarian]

============
11-7-22

Originally Posted by curtisfong

Now Wiese v Bonta

Order lifting stay of proceedings

10/19/2022 https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1666223156

status conference continued until January 17, 2023

11/4/2022 https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1667593919

============
2-26-19

The order has issued and the case actually survived the motion to dismiss. While the vagueness and overbreadth claims have been dismissed, the Second Amendment, takings, and equal protection claims survive. This is good news, in that the 9th Circuit will now not have an opportunity to take this case up prior to Duncan.

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

Per FPC announcement,

WILLIAM WIESE, an individual; JEREMIAH
MORRIS, an individual; LANCE COWLEY, an
individual; SHERMAN MACASTON, an
individual; FRANK FEDEREAU, an individual;
ALAN NORMANDY, an individual; TODD
NIELSEN, an individual; THE CALGUNS
FOUNDATION; FIREARMS POLICY
COALITION; FIREARMS POLICY
FOUNDATION; SECOND AMENDMENT
FOUNDATION,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of California; MARTHA
SUPERNOR, in her official capacity as Acting
Chief of the Department of Justice Bureau of
Firearms,
Defendants

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against
Defendants, and pray for relief as follows:

1. For declaratory judgment and relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that California Penal Code sections 32310, 32390, and sections 32445 and 32450 are unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment;

2. For declaratory judgment and relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that California
Penal Code sections 32310, 32390, and sections 32445 and 32450 are unconstitutional and
violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments;

3. For declaratory judgment and relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that California Penal Code sections 32310, 32390, and sections 32445 and 32450 are indefinite, vague and uncertain, and therefore unenforceable, and also, on the grounds that it is not clear which version of these statutes (i.e., the version passed pursuant to SB 1446 or Prop. 63), and the exceptions thereto, may apply;

4. For injunctive relief, consistent with declaratory relief sought herein, enjoining defendants, and their officers, agents and employees, from enforcing any of the provisions of California Penal Code sections 32310, 32390, and sections 32445 and 32450;

5. For costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable law; and

6. For all such relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1493395430

[Sutcliffe]

Always liked that guy.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Originally Posted by Sutcliffe

Always liked that guy.

Meh. He's ok.

[splithoof]

Go get 'em!

[wolfwood]

Is it a coincidence that this lawsuit came out at the same time an the NRA's assault weapons case?

[sfpcservice]

What if we could just get the 9th to stipulate that they will deny this case on en banc so we could go straight to SCOTUS without the 10 year wait...

[BumBum]

Oh goodie! Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are trying to stay relevant by secretly filing a lawsuit challenging the LCM law without telling anyone else. So glad they consulted with CRPA / Michel's office, especially considering they sent out a call for plaintiffs a few days ago...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1328911

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by BumBum

Oh goodie! Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are trying to stay relevant by secretly filing a lawsuit challenging the LCM law without telling anyone else. So glad they consulted with CRPA / Michel's office, especially considering they sent out a call for plaintiffs a few days ago...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1328911

You're just being ridiculous now.

It's high time all this gets resolved and the SAF is also backing it

If the NRA wanted to go after hi caps they could have. They lost the last one.

Right now everyone has a place at the table and I have no allegiance to anyone

[HowardW56]

Originally Posted by BumBum

Oh goodie! Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are trying to stay relevant by secretly filing a lawsuit challenging the LCM law without telling anyone else. So glad they consulted with CRPA / Michel's office, especially considering they sent out a call for plaintiffs a few days ago...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1328911

Originally Posted by taperxz

You're just being ridiculous now.

It's high time all this gets resolved and the SAF is also backing it

If the NRA wanted to go after hi caps they could have. They lost the last one.

Right now everyone has a place at the table and I have no allegiance to anyone

Taperxz, Agreed; anyone that fights for OUR rights, is on OUR team! I'll support both actions, there are plenty of battles to fight here....

[bootstrap]

Godspeed gentlemen!

[kcbrown]

I can't wait to see FGG's criticism of this case while he simultaneously remains silent about Rupp ...

[USMCM16A2]

Go get em Bill. A2

[Master_P]

How is this any different from Fyock v. Sunnyvale?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[CalNRA]

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by CalNRA

There hasn't been much good for any gun owner in CA in the last 40 years. Let's face it, even if these CASESgo to SCOTUS, Gorsuch needs help on 2A stuff. He can't do it alone

What's your point?

[The Tiger]

Well hopefully we get a new SC justice and a few Trump appointments at the 9th before this case gets that far. Feeling pessimistic with just Gorsuch. We need to pick up one more robe.

[BumBum]

Resources are scarce. There is no excuse for not coordinating, or at the very least communicating, so that efforts are not duplicated. There were a lot of bad laws passed last year, more than enough for us to handle to not have to double up.

[Dark Hunt]

It took more than a few days to get this organized, the timing is probably because it took a couple of months after Trump won.

You don't write these things in a couple of days if you are actually trying to win.

[wireless]

Wasn't this already settled in the Sunnyvale case or are they just trying to keep preban mags?

[Window_Seat]

I'm optimistic about this because of the fact that we haven't been knocked out just yet, and are quite far from it. The California Legislature has a lot more to worry about now, than they did before November 8. Remember, these cases are designed to go all the way to 1 First St NE.

Erik.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

I'm not sure I like you using that smiley...

[bwiese]

Easy, guys.

I will just say the case was ready to file on its own merits.

I don't care about "competition" just want things to win.

If other good cases develop, fine. Worse comes to worse they get merged
(Richards, Peruta).

Remember July 1 mag date limit is "not that far off".

Separate from CGF status, if I as an individual had been asked by any other competent gun org to be a plaintiff - this includes NRA, etc. GOA, or anybody but CAFR or NAGR - I'd've been glad to be part.

[MrEd]

Bill is a good guy , he has been in the "game" for a long time and I wish him all the success in the world with this because if he wins then we ALL win .
I had the pleasure to meet him a few times and always enjoyed our conversations .
Do some people have some disagreements with him ? I am sure some do , do I have a dog in that fight . But having met the guy and even enjoyed lunch with him and a few other of the "right people" I know his heart is in the right place so Bill , go get'em !!!!!!

[ironpegasus]

Good to see the challenge, but a little disappointed that it's not as full throated as the AWCA case. There's a point in the complaint where they start to develop a good equal protection case by mentioning that those with guard cards can have large capacity mags for self defense while on duty, but then they never truly develop it further and go after the other separate but equal classes with exemptions.

Legally by USSC precedent, the only reason anybody is armed is for their own personal self defense as there exists no duty to defend another individual even for police officers.To me that was a missed argument that should have been made because you fight a law on as many fronts as you can - you never know which strategy is going to be the one that convinces a judge your argument is the right one.

I also kinda wish we had a slightly more diverse set of plaintiffs. No offense to Bill and the others, but a woman or two or some other form of "diversity" to add to the complaint might have made the freedom haters on the court more sympathetic to the case like we saw in Caetano. I hate that that has to even be considered as a factor, but with the courts being the way they are... Still, I hope this get somewhere that previous challenges haven't.

[GM4spd]

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Easy, guys.

^^^ This.

There is some infighting with various organizations but overall there is a common goal and we are all on the same side. Stepping on each other's toes is something that should be kept in-house - it will cause hurt feelings and genuine disagreements, but it shouldn't affect the outcome of the legal battles.

[GW]

Best of luck to Bill and the rest.
His fight is our fight

[FalconLair]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Easy, guys.

I will just say the case was ready to file on its own merits.

I don't care about "competition" just want things to win.

If other good cases develop, fine. Worse comes to worse they get merged
(Richards, Peruta).

Remember July 1 mag date limit is "not that far off".

Separate from CGF status, if I as an individual had been asked by any other competent gun org to be a plaintiff - this includes NRA, etc. GOA, or anybody but CAFR or NAGR - I'd've been glad to be part.

will you be seeking an injunction?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by FalconLair

will you be seeking an injunction?

First post, item 4 in the quote.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by IVC

I'm not sure I like you using that smiley...

Thought it would be oddly appropriate here.

Frankly, I'd love to see FGG comment on this in a timely fashion, such that those bringing the suit can alter it to account for what FGG's comments suggest are the weaknesses in it.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

Thought it would be oddly appropriate here.

Frankly, I'd love to see FGG comment on this in a timely fashion, such that those bringing the suit can alter it to account for what FGG's comments suggest are the weaknesses in it.

That supposes FGG wants to comment in time for something to actually get done, instead of knowing every move of the game before it is played.

Actually I'd love to see FGG comment on anything, including this:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywo...len-from-home/

[Californio]

A 4500lb TL30x6 safe only costs what, $10K, a fool and his money is soon parted.

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Actually I'd love to see FGG comment on anything, including this:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywo...len-from-home/

[wireless]

Originally Posted by wireless

Wasn't this already settled in the Sunnyvale case or are they just trying to keep preban mags?

anyone

[ironpegasus]

Originally Posted by wireless

anyone

From the complaint it looks like it's a blanket challenge to the restriction on LCMs, but with greater emphasis on being able to retain possession of those already owned.

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Right now everyone has a place at the table and I have no allegiance to anyone

If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu.

[Swatter911]

I'm very disappointed in the apparent lack of coordination with CRPA/NRA on this filing.

Divided we fall.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by Swatter911

I'm very disappointed in the apparent lack of coordination with CRPA/NRA on this filing.

Divided we fall.

Why would anyone "unite" with people who've adopted a strategy doomed to failure?

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

Why would anyone "unite" with people who've adopted a strategy mount a legal challenge in CA/9th Circuit doomed to failure?

FTFY

[wireless]

Originally Posted by ironpegasus

From the complaint it looks like it's a blanket challenge to the restriction on LCMs, but with greater emphasis on being able to retain possession of those already owned.

So we are going to lose the 2A challenge because the 9th are settled this in the sunnyvale case...

[Drivedabizness]

I had the same question - wouldn't District judges just dismiss citing Fyock??