Rhode v. Becerra (Challenge to CA Ammo Sales) - ORAL ARGS at 9th 11-9-2020

[Bhobbs]

At least the 4th is hearing Bianchi. It wasn’t remanded further.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by kuug

Remanded back to the district court to start over from square one, just like all of the others. The 9th sees fit to give California the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of Heller and Bruen.

It was not remanded for a do over. It was sent back to get it right from where it was left off

[Metal God]

They were all sent back from where they left off . The issue is some were then sent back further.

[Dorzak]

Originally Posted by Metal God

That might have been better if Opra was giving them out

If she was handing them out she would side with the state.

[Metal God]

Lol you don’t get a gun , you don’t get a gun , NOBODY GETS A GUUUUN !!!!!!

[abinsinia]

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez: Status Conference held on 12/12/2022. 12/12/2022 Second Amendment cases MOStatus hearing held. The state defendants shall create, and the plaintiffs shall meet and confer regarding, a survey or spreadsheet of relevant statutes, laws, or regulations in chronological order. The listing shall begin at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and continue through twenty years after the Fourteenth Amendment. For each cited statute/law/regulation, the survey shall provide: (a) the date of enactment; (b) the enacting state, territory, or locality; (c) a description of what was restricted (e.g., dirks, daggers, metal knuckles, storage of gunpowder or cartridges, or use regulations); (d) what it was that the law or regulation restricted; (e) what type of weapon was being restricted (e.g., knife, Bowie Knife, stiletto, metal knuckles, pistols, rifles); (f) if and when the law was repealed and whether it was replaced; (g) whether the regulation was reviewed by a court and the outcome of the courts review (with case citation). Defendants may create a second survey covering a time period following that of the first list. If opposing parties cannot agree on the inclusion of a particular entry on the survey, the disagreement shall be indicated and described on a separate list. The survey list shall be filed within 30 days. Parties may file a brief up to 25 pages within 30 days thereafter focusing on relevant analogs. Parties may file a responsive brief within 10 days thereafter. Parties shall agree within 20 days on deposing Mr. Roth and Mr. Cramer at an agreed place and time. (Court Reporter/ECR Abigail Torres). (Plaintiff Attorney Sean Brady, Chuck Michel). (Defendant Attorney Anthony P. O'Brien). (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 12/15/2022)

Minute order with details on the spreadsheets.

[abinsinia]

Here are the Rhodes varants of the spreadsheets. Miller and Duncan have two, Rhodes has three,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...71335.79.1.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...71335.79.2.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...71335.79.3.pdf

[homelessdude]

The judge said beginning at the second amendment. Over half of this mess is way before that time period or after it. I believe every one cited in the correct time period delt with Indians and slaves and was ruled unconstitutional. I don't see this helping the state/defendant much.

[Sgt Raven]

Is New York trying to beat us to SCOTUS on a ammo ban?




https://youtu.be/D_DwCfp02x0

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

Is New York trying to beat us to SCOTUS on a ammo ban?
https://youtu.be/D_DwCfp02x0

No. At this point, the bill only impacts ammunition for NY “Assault Weapons”. Of course, if you have other guns which use the same cartridge, you will be screwed.

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S929

/

[CGZ]

From my quick glance, the Duncan and Miller spreadsheets look identical, but the Rhode spreadsheet is it's own gem.

Nearly 100% of what they mentioned in their founding era spreadsheet was replead by the 14th amendment. The rest of it was Revolutionary War era oath laws.

How they'll defend this in their briefs next month will be something to behold.

[JiuJitsu]

Originally Posted by CGZ

From my quick glance, the Duncan and Miller spreadsheets look identical, but the Rhode spreadsheet is it's own gem.

Nearly 100% of what they mentioned in their founding era spreadsheet was replead by the 14th amendment. The rest of it was Revolutionary War era oath laws.

How they'll defend this in their briefs next month will be something to behold.

Yea, the Rhode spreadsheet from CA was truly entertaining.

I just can't even imagine trying to write their defense brief using this steaming pile to back it up. It will have to use Olympic levels of mental gymnastics and yet still will be laughably indefensible to most rational observers.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by CGZ

From my quick glance, the Duncan and Miller spreadsheets look identical, but the Rhode spreadsheet is it's own gem.

Nearly 100% of what they mentioned in their founding era spreadsheet was replead by the 14th amendment. The rest of it was Revolutionary War era oath laws.

How they'll defend this in their briefs next month will be something to behold.

I'm not sure the State understands the assignment. It wasn't to list any laws that regulated anything about any arm to show a great history of regulation. It is to be specifically analogous to the arm they want to ban. But we all understood that.

[JiuJitsu]

Originally Posted by ritter

I'm not sure the State understands the assignment. It wasn't to list any laws that regulated anything about any arm to show a great history of regulation. It is to be specifically analogous to the arm they want to ban. But we all understood that.

Wait, you mean the state employed the old "throw all the poop at the wall and just see what sticks" Hail Mary strategy?

That's what you do when you have a solid, focused, coherent argument, right guys?

[timdps]

Originally Posted by ritter

I'm not sure the State understands the assignment. It wasn't to list any laws that regulated anything about any arm to show a great history of regulation. It is to be specifically analogous to the arm they want to ban. But we all understood that.

So now they have to defend each and every one they have presented and show how they are analogous to the laws they are defending? Every single one?

[ritter]

Interesting they even through the overtly racists ones at the wall. Those should help their case.

[JiuJitsu]

CA’s upcoming briefs for each of these cases are sure going to be…neat. Special, really.

[SpudmanWP]

11 of the expected 12 spreadsheets have been combined into a single sheet.

The only missing item is the aforementioned Miller Plaintiff's response.

https://airtable.com/shrVnkmENgDHNARBF

I'll be maintaining the table in the Miller thread:
https://calguns.net/calgunforum/show....php?t=1552764

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by CGZ

Nearly 100% of what they mentioned in their founding era spreadsheet was replead by the 14th amendment. The rest of it was Revolutionary War era oath laws.

Wait-is the State of California now asserting that only “Oath Keepers” can purchase firearms and ammunition?!?

That’s unexpected…

[Odd_Ball]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

The judge said beginning at the second amendment. Over half of this mess is way before that time period or after it. I believe every one cited in the correct time period delt with Indians and slaves and was ruled unconstitutional. I don't see this helping the state/defendant much.

It shouldn't help ... but I suspect the 9th Circuit en banc will find a way to shoehorn something while explaining that this time around these laws are for 'good' reasons (cue public safety/interest balancing bs) not like the original discriminatory reasons against slaves and indians.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Odd_Ball

It shouldn't help ... but I suspect the 9th Circuit en banc will find a way to shoehorn something while explaining that this time around these laws are for 'good' reasons (cue public safety/interest balancing bs) not like the original discriminatory reasons against slaves and indians.

Although interest balancing is clearly off the table after Bruen, they may not find it hard to find justification on old law doctrines, Heller and Bruen notwithstanding. Just go read their ridiculous opinion in Young v. Hawaii holding that there is no right to carry outside the home, openly or concealed, citing many of the same cases as the Supreme Court but coming to the opposite conclusion. In essence, they concluded that the Sovereign had a monopoly on the use of force, using very selective citations and quotations out of old English law. Should we expect anything less of them now, or will they be sufficiently cowed after the summary reversal and remand of Young?

[JiuJitsu]

Originally Posted by Odd_Ball

It shouldn't help ... but I suspect the 9th Circuit en banc will find a way to shoehorn something while explaining that this time around these laws are for 'good' reasons (cue public safety/interest balancing bs) not like the original discriminatory reasons against slaves and indians.

I fully expect CA to attempt to defend their current laws by pointing to overtly racist and discriminatory laws from the past that targeted certain disfavored groups at the time. I think this is pathetic and downright repulsive but I believe they will stoop that low because that is basically all they have left.

In response I would note there must be some curious reason that basically none of these types of racist gun laws were ever actually enacted against the favored groups at the time. It is because the favored groups would NEVER have tolerated such blatantly unconstitutional infringements to their civil rights. Nor should everyone do so equally today.

[JiuJitsu]

Just to add to my previous thought. I think the history and tradition part of the Bruen analysis requires to ask if there is any widespread and enduring history and tradition of these infringing laws on the overall American public as a whole, not just was there some law or three but they only stuck it to these disfavored groups or existed as part of some handful of outliers. I believe this was stated in the Bruen decision in various ways.

[Chosen_1]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

Just to add to my previous thought. I think the history and tradition part of the Bruen analysis requires to ask if there is any widespread and enduring history and tradition of these infringing laws on the overall American public as a whole, not just was there some law or three but they only stuck it to these disfavored groups or existed as part of some handful of outliers. I believe this was stated in the Bruen decision in various ways.

SCOTUS already addressed this:

"But to the extent later history contradicts what the text says, the text controls... Thus, “post-ratification adoption or acceptance of laws that are inconsistent with the original meaning of the constitutional text obviously cannot overcome or alter that text.”

History can only serve to confirm the text, not contradict it. If the "historical analogues" are repugnant to the meaning of the 2A, they should be disregarded.

[rplaw]

I feel the need to point out that, if after the civil war ended and the 13th and 14th Amendments were ratified, if a southern State had made a State law which prohibited non whites from owing property, voting, and had no citizenship within the State, the courts would not have hesitated one single second to strike such a law down.

Yet here we have literally decades of court actions, despite precedent which was recently made very clear by SCOTUS, whereby the courts refuse to enjoin the States when they enact gun legislation. Even the SCOTUS is refusing to enforce it's own edicts "while the cases percolate in the lower courts." Cases which infringe on our Rights as badly as, or worse than, the example I gave above.

Thereby proving that the 2nd is indeed a 2nd class Right, even to those who said it was not.

[yacko]

Originally Posted by rplaw

I feel the need to point out that, if after the civil war ended and the 13th and 14th Amendments were ratified, if a southern State had made a State law which prohibited non whites from owing property, voting, and had no citizenship within the State, the courts would not have hesitated one single second to strike such a law down.

Yet here we have literally decades of court actions, despite precedent which was recently made very clear by SCOTUS, whereby the courts refuse to enjoin the States when they enact gun legislation. Even the SCOTUS is refusing to enforce it's own edicts "while the cases percolate in the lower courts." Cases which infringe on our Rights as badly as, or worse than, the example I gave above.

Thereby proving that the 2nd is indeed a 2nd class Right, even to those who said it was not.

Not challenged in cal until 1913
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harada_House

[Mongo68]

Originally Posted by rplaw

I feel the need to point out that, if after the civil war ended and the 13th and 14th Amendments were ratified, if a southern State had made a State law which prohibited non whites from owing property, voting, and had no citizenship within the State, the courts would not have hesitated one single second to strike such a law down.

Yet here we have literally decades of court actions, despite precedent which was recently made very clear by SCOTUS, whereby the courts refuse to enjoin the States when they enact gun legislation. Even the SCOTUS is refusing to enforce it's own edicts "while the cases percolate in the lower courts." Cases which infringe on our Rights as badly as, or worse than, the example I gave above.

Thereby proving that the 2nd is indeed a 2nd class Right, even to those who said it was not.

I would love for that to get on the record during a SCOTUS hearing or in St Benitez's rulings...

[yacko]

Originally Posted by Mongo68

I would love for that to get on the record during a SCOTUS hearing or in St Benitez's rulings...

Well- that wont happen since rp is wrong.

Click the link I gave above.

cal would not let a Japanese/ foreigner/non white/ non national buy property until it was challenged in state supreme court in 1913. Son and daughters were born here, so claim of citizenship based on birth.

They won.

I'd bet the current value of the Harada house the south was worse at that time.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by rplaw

I feel the need to point out that, if after the civil war ended and the 13th and 14th Amendments were ratified, if a southern State had made a State law which prohibited non whites from owing property, voting, and had no citizenship within the State, the courts would not have hesitated one single second to strike such a law down.

Yet here we have literally decades of court actions, despite precedent which was recently made very clear by SCOTUS, whereby the courts refuse to enjoin the States when they enact gun legislation. Even the SCOTUS is refusing to enforce it's own edicts "while the cases percolate in the lower courts." Cases which infringe on our Rights as badly as, or worse than, the example I gave above.

Thereby proving that the 2nd is indeed a 2nd class Right, even to those who said it was not.

https://www.history.com/topics/world...olated%20camps.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by yacko

Well- that wont happen since rp is wrong.

Click the link I gave above.

cal would not let a Japanese/ foreigner/non white/ non national buy property until it was challenged in state supreme court in 1913. Son and daughters were born here, so claim of citizenship based on birth.

They won.

I'd bet the current value of the Harada house the south was worse at that time.

California isn't one of the "southern states."

[abinsinia]

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez: The State defendants are directed to file a brief which identifies the best historical regulation that is a proper analogue and relevantly similar to a statewide background check for buying ammunition. The brief shall be limited to five pages and shall be filed with the brief currently due 30 days after the filing of the law list. (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 02/07/2023)

This order just came in for Rhode and Fouts. I guess the spreadsheets were not enough.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

This order just came in for Rhode and Fouts. I guess the spreadsheets were not enough.

I read that as Benitez telling the state to clarify which of the pages and pages of irrelevant laws does it wish to use to support history and tradition and why. That shouldn't take 5 pages.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by ritter

I read that as Benitez telling the state to clarify which of the pages and pages of irrelevant laws does it wish to use to support history and tradition and why. That shouldn't take 5 pages.

It seems like Judge Benitez could assume all the entries they filed in the spreadsheets are the ones they think are "relevantly similar". The spreadsheets were not a complete history of the laws.

Unless Judge Benitez does not find any "relevantly similar" history in the spreadsheets.

[Elgatodeacero]

The State is in a deep hole here. They were hoping to point at the mass of junk in the “master table” and say “it’s in there somewhere judge”.

The judge is telling them they have one last chance to carry their burden, and 5 page limit means he expects a laser focus.

[abinsinia]

It's notable that Miller and Duncan did NOT get similar orders (at least not as of now).

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Unless Judge Benitez does not find any "relevantly similar" history in the spreadsheets.

It's sort of like the state turned in their midterm paper, having copied the entirety of Wikipedia. Professor Benitez is handing it back with a bit of a smirk and saying "is this really what you want me to grade? Give me five pages of relevance when the next paper's due and I'll consider it." It pads the file for the inevitable appeal to CA9 that he did give the state one more try specific to history and tradition (because they haven't grasped it in the decade in a half since Heller) and makes "likelihood of success" for the state's stay request that much lower. At least that's my positive read on it.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by ritter

It's sort of like the state turned in their midterm paper, having copied the entirety of Wikipedia. Professor Benitez is handing it back with a bit of a smirk and saying "is this really what you want me to grade? Give me five pages of relevance when the next paper's due and I'll consider it." It pads the file for the inevitable appeal to CA9 that he did give the state one more try specific to history and tradition (because they haven't grasped it in the decade in a half since Heller) and makes "likelihood of success" for the state's stay request that much lower. At least that's my positive read on it.

Another judge did this recently in B&L Productions case (banning gun shows),

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...8&postcount=28

If you read the order the judge did not seem happy.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

It's notable that Miller and Duncan did NOT get similar orders (at least not as of now).

Maybe because Miller and Duncan are much simpler as hardware bans rather than restrictions? There are no analogues to banning sale and possession of arms "in common use for lawful purposes." Benitez isn't going to buy the "like an M16" and "not useful for self defense so not protected" bs.

Edit: scratch all that. Similar order issued for Duncan and Miller.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by ritter

Maybe because Miller and Duncan are much simpler as hardware bans rather than restrictions? There are no analogues to banning sale and possession of arms "in common use for lawful purposes." Benitez isn't going to buy the "like an M16" and "not useful for self defense so not protected" bs.

Edit: scratch all that. Similar order issued for Duncan and Miller.

Yeah, I missed the order for Duncan and Miller. I suppose none of them have clear history.

[Dvrjon]

The Judge has walked them into a coffin corner.

-The state says, “There’s a great deal of legal THT supporting our position.”

-Benitez says, “Tell me what it is within the requisite time frame. Oh, add another 20 years to make sure we have overlap.”

-The state empties the dump truck of Time and says, “Here it is.”

-The judge has no intention of rendering a ruling on why each and every item doesn’t apply because that leaves him open for appeal. So, the judge says, “Hey, thanks. Now, which of these best supports your case and I’ll rule on that.”

Expect the state to ask for an extension and the ability to provide a long brief. “It’s not about one singular event, but about the body of law. To take one element out of context unfairly assesses it.”