Jones v. Bonta - Age-Based Ban on Firearm Purchases

[FirearmFino]

PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT OF BRIEFS REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[FirearmFino]

ORDER: (1) Granting Joint Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 17 ]; (2) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Joint Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages [Doc. 18 ]. Plaintiffs shall file and electronically serve their Second Amended Complaint on or before 11/12/2019. Defendants shall file and electronically serve their pleading responsive to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint within 14 days after the filing of the Second Amended Complaint. The Court finds good cause exists to grant leave to both parties to exceed the Civil Local Rule 7.1.h 25-page limit on motion briefs and opposition briefs up to five (5) additional pages. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...35622.19.0.pdf

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[FirearmFino]

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

[FirearmFino]

PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATION TO ADOPT EXTENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was filed and electronically served November 12, 2019;

2. Defendants shall file and electronically serve their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on or before December 27, 2019;

3. Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their motion on or before January 24, 2020.

[FirearmFino]

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

[FirearmFino]

Defendants' ANSWER to 20 Amended Complaint, by Xavier Becerra, Martin Horan.

[librarian72]

I've never seen a response like this before (nuh-uh, don't have to, why did you make me file this). I freely admit that I am not directly employed in the legal profession, but I have read virtually every following linked to this board.

Um. Have any of the legal folks here seen anything like this?

[ARFrog]

...nuh-uh, don't have to...

Seems more like -"nuh-uh, you don't have standing, we're Teflon and nothing sticks to us" pretty well describes the response.

Consequently, I don't believe I learned anything new from this.

[FirearmFino]

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction

[darkwater34]

Oh boy am I going to make a lot of snow flakes and lineral heads explode with this but here it goes I got my ear protection and hazmat suit on.

But it is just fine and dandy to let these young people with under developed brains to vote and go to war and be tried as adults in a court of law. What hypocrites at their best. And these dumb law makers want to let 16 year old's vote.

They do not Becerra and the elected elite get to have their cake and eat it too !!!

I hate to say this but maybe they are right let us raise the smoking age to 21 as they already have and the voting age to 21 and the firearms age to 21 as they already have and the age that these young people cannot enter military service until the of age 21. And a person under the age of 21 cannot be tried in court as an adult.
But let us change the latter of the three before saying what a person at the age of 18 can or cannot have a right to.
This means that parents will be responsible for supporting these young people with under developed brains until the age of 21.

Just saying the law makers don't get to have it both ways and that I disagree as long as the age for being tried in court as an adult, voting age stands and the age to enter military service is what it is as of now these young people have the right to protect their lives, property friends neighbors and family.
In other words let them have their firearms or change the adult age laws across the board.

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction

No wonder it took forever it load, it's 289 pages

[FirearmFino]

MOTION OF GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

MOTION leave to participate as amicus curiae re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS CURIAE

[FirearmFino]

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE BRADY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[wolfwood]

Thanks for keeping up with the cases firearmsfino and posting links.

[FirearmFino]

Brady Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (including declarations and exhibits)

Giffords Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (including declarations and exhibits)

Everytown Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (including declarations and exhibits)

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

Brady Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (including declarations and exhibits)

Giffords Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (including declarations and exhibits)

Everytown Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (including declarations and exhibits)

When is the hearing for the oral argument? And when is the reply brief due?

edit nevermind reply is due on the 24th and there is going to be no oral argument

[wolfwood]

All the amicus briefs got denied

[Robotron2k84]

That order is awesome sauce! Love how the antis were completely cut off with partisan condemnation.

Very good!

[Foulball]

Absolutely spectacular reasoning by the court. Almost as well written as something Benitez might put out. Kudos to this judge.

[ARFrog]

My favorite two lines from the denial of the amicus briefs:

“Plaintiffs’ objection demonstrates that the Giffords Law Center’s
position should be more accurately termed friend to Defendant Xavier Becerra than a friend to the Court.”

Regarding Everytown:

“The Court finds that the amicus brief may prejudice Plaintiffs on the trial level because the brief allows Defendant to have a proverbial “another bite of the apple” due to partisan influence.”

[librarian72]

Hmm judge was apt by bill clinton. Quick, tell KC we got an exception to his rule!

[-hanko]

"Plaintiffs’ objection demonstrates that the Giffords Law Center’s position should be more accurately termed friend to Defendant Xavier Becerra than a friend to the Court. Accordingly, the Court will not consider the Giffords Law Center’s amicus brief as its’ usefulness is diminished at the trial level due to its obvious partisanship. Therefore, Giffords Law Center’s motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief [doc. 26] is DENIED."

"Moreover, the Court hereby DENIES five (5) Requests to Appear Pro Hac Vice [docs. 41-45] submitted by attorneys attempting to make appearance for Everytown."

The Order is pretty good.

[nyla]

Beautiful. Thank you for sharing.

It shouldn’t even need to be said how obviously biased their “research” is. It’s total BS.

[big red]

I think a certain judge did not like these leftist idiots taking him for a fool. Maybe judge Benitez found himself a golfing partner (LOL). intelligent judges are hard to come by in today's world much less ones that try to defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights .

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by -hanko

"Plaintiffs’ objection demonstrates that the Giffords Law Center’s position should be more accurately termed friend to Defendant Xavier Becerra than a friend to the Court. Accordingly, the Court will not consider the Giffords Law Center’s amicus brief as its’ usefulness is diminished at the trial level due to its obvious partisanship. Therefore, Giffords Law Center’s motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief [doc. 26] is DENIED."



"Moreover, the Court hereby DENIES five (5) Requests to Appear Pro Hac Vice [docs. 41-45] submitted by attorneys attempting to make appearance for Everytown."



The Order is pretty good.

A Clinton appointment as well. What is going on, it's like all of a sudden we are seeing socal judges find a spine.

[sfpcservice]

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

A Clinton appointment as well. What is going on, it's like all of a sudden we are seeing socal judges find a spine.

Possibly we are seeing the "reasonable left" feel free to come out in favor of rights after the court packing that has taken place... They were probably in hiding and feeling safer now.

[wolfwood]

reply brief https://www.scribd.com/document/4442...Reply-Brief-PI

[FirearmFino]

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Robotron2k84]

Good on plaintiffs’ lawyers for calling out the BS studies and statistics that DOJ counts as fact. Bravo!

[FirearmFino]

District Court:

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Ninth Circuit:

OPENING BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

[jpeyton]

Originally Posted by gobler

I've talked to my (now 16 yo) nephew about his rights for years. I suggested that so long as there is an age restriction on his rights he may want to refuse signing up for the selective service. He and his dad agree and are suggesting the same for all there sons, nephews, cousins and their friends kids. Spread this.

I realize that this is an old post but to anybody telling kids to throw out their selective service in protest be warned. My parents threw away the registration card that came in the mail back in the 90's. I found out later, during the great recession after I was laid off from my job and applied at a vocational school, that I was ineligible for any kind of federal aid due to not signing up for selective service. Unfortunately I was to old to register being 33 at the time so I was SOL.

This was back in 2010 so I don't know if things have changed since then.

[FirearmFino]

APPELLEES’ ANSWERING BRIEF

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF

[spddrcr]

Originally Posted by jpeyton

I realize that this is an old post but to anybody telling kids to throw out their selective service in protest be warned. My parents threw away the registration card that came in the mail back in the 90's. I found out later, during the great recession after I was laid off from my job and applied at a vocational school, that I was ineligible for any kind of federal aid due to not signing up for selective service. Unfortunately I was to old to register being 33 at the time so I was SOL.

This was back in 2010 so I don't know if things have changed since then.

Back in 1992 I tried to get a passport to go to London. They denied my passport due to me not filling out my SS card. There are definitely repercussions for not signing and sending the card in.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by spddrcr

Back in 1992 I tried to get a passport to go to London. They denied my passport due to me not filling out my SS card. There are definitely repercussions for not signing and sending the card in.

It's also a felony not to register, and a felony to knowingly council family members and visitors to internet forums not to register:

Repercussions for Failing to Register

If required to register with Selective Service, failure to register is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the registration requirement is subject to the same penalties.

Unless a man provides proof that he is exempt from the registration requirement, his failure to register will result in referral to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution.

In addition to potential criminal repercussions, failure to register may make a man permanently ineligible for certain benefits.

NOTE: Some States have created additional consequences for men who fail to register.

On top of that, those who never registered by their 26th birthday, will never be able to register, forever locking themselves into unregistered status and being ineligible for Federal employment, student aid, and any other benefits which require registration. So... maybe not the best thing to be telling your family members' kids who probably don't know any better not to register.

[FirearmFino]

Notice of Oral Argument on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 3 - Scheduled Location: Pasadena CA.

[FirearmFino]

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: OC): Appellants and Appellees are ordered to file supplemental briefing addressing the original public meaning of the Second Amendment. In the briefs, the parties are instructed to specifically address the following: 1. What is the original public meaning of the Second Amendment phrases: “A well regulated Militia”; “the right of the people”; and “shall not be infringed”? 2. How does the tool of corpus linguistics help inform the determination of the original public meaning of those Second Amendment phrases? (See Corpus of Historical American English, BYU, https://www.english-corpora.org/coha/; Corpus of Contemporary American English, BYU, https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/) 3. How do the data yielded from corpus linguistics assist in the interpretation of the constitutionality of age-based restrictions under the Second Amendment? Appellants and Appellees shall simultaneously submit supplemental briefs within 21 days after entry of this order. Appellants and Appellees shall submit responsive supplemental briefs no later than 10 days from service of the initial brief. The supplemental briefs shall be no longer than 6,500 words and the responsive supplemental briefs shall be no longer than 3,250 words.

[FirearmFino]

Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Supplemental Brief

Appellees’ supplemental brief

[FirearmFino]

Panel: R. NELSON, and LEE, Circuit Judges, and STEIN (New York Southern), District Judge

[mit31]

Or put another way: Trump, Trump, Clinton.

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

Panel: R. NELSON, and LEE, Circuit Judges, and STEIN (New York Southern), District Judge

[FirearmFino]

Originally Posted by mit31

Or put another way: Carter, Trump, Clinton. So... not great.

Judge Ryan Nelson was appointed by Trump.