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

[abinsinia]

Looks like the response to the petition for rehearing is due August 23.

[rplaw]

It's interesting how the State MISSTATES the holding in Bruen regarding historical analogs. It's not just any historical analog, it's a historical analog which existed at the time of ratification.

Thomas specifically discussed the post ratification periods and how the longer between the time of ratification and more "modern" regulations, the less of an appropriate analog the "modern" regulation is. Even antebellum regulations are not an appropriate comparison to the public understanding of what the text meant at the time of ratification. 20th century regulations are out of the question and the court was extremely clear on this point.

By intentionally omitting this crucial part of the holding, the State is perpetrating a fraud on the court. If the State is only negligent in omitting this rather obvious portion of the decision, then the attorney responsible for drafting and signing the brief needs referred to the Bar disciplinary committee for malpractice and then terminated from State employment. You cannot do what the State has done in this brief - it is anathema to the law and legal practice.

[rplaw]

Why am I the only person responding to this stuff? Where are KC Brown and the rest of the Calguns legal beagles?

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by rplaw

Why am I the only person responding to this stuff? Where are KC Brown and the rest of the Calguns legal beagles?

Now, i just read. I refuse to get into it with them.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by rplaw

It's interesting how the State MISSTATES the holding in Bruen regarding historical analogs. It's not just any historical analog, it's a historical analog which existed at the time of ratification.

Thomas specifically discussed the post ratification periods and how the longer between the time of ratification and more "modern" regulations, the less of an appropriate analog the "modern" regulation is. Even antebellum regulations are not an appropriate comparison to the public understanding of what the text meant at the time of ratification. 20th century regulations are out of the question and the court was extremely clear on this point.

By intentionally omitting this crucial part of the holding, the State is perpetrating a fraud on the court. If the State is only negligent in omitting this rather obvious portion of the decision, then the attorney responsible for drafting and signing the brief needs referred to the Bar disciplinary committee for malpractice and then terminated from State employment. You cannot do what the State has done in this brief - it is anathema to the law and legal practice.

This mistake is mandatory tho. The state has no choice but to use modern history to justify their laws, because the well is dry in the correct time frame.

[Roswell Saucer]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

This mistake is mandatory tho. The state has no choice but to use modern history to justify their laws, because the well is dry in the correct time frame.

It's also worth noting that the law which the Supreme Court invalidated was enacted before World War I so good luck with that, California.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

This mistake is mandatory tho. The state has no choice but to use modern history to justify their laws, because the well is dry in the correct time frame.

The State has a choice; concede and admit that the law is unconstitutional, or fall on it's sword and admit that they've tried to mislead the court.

There is no 3rd option.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Now, i just read. I refuse to get into it with them.

Chicken.

I believe that KC, for all that he was right in the outcome for many of the cases until Bruen changed the landscape, was batting for the other side. Nor was he the only one.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by rplaw

The State has a choice; concede and admit that the law is unconstitutional, or fall on it's sword and admit that they've tried to mislead the court.

There is no 3rd option.

Haven't we seen the movie before. Heller was somewhat clear as to what to do, and how to review 2A cases, and they were told not to use interest balancing. Then we got interest balancing.

[Roswell Saucer]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Haven't we seen the movie before. Heller was somewhat clear as to what to do, and how to review 2A cases, and they were told not to use interest balancing. Then we got interest balancing.

This time, though, there's a far more reliable Supreme Court that is no longer afraid to do the right thing. Justice Thomas isn't messing around.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by rplaw

Chicken.

I believe that KC, for all that he was right in the outcome for many of the cases until Bruen changed the landscape, was batting for the other side. Nor was he the only one.

I've told him for years that this would eventually happen. I just lost a few battles throughout the war.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I've told him for years that this would eventually happen. I just lost a few battles throughout the war.

This is a lesson we should all learn; that the war is never over and while we have the upper hand at the moment, the tide of battle is ever changing.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Haven't we seen the movie before. Heller was somewhat clear as to what to do, and how to review 2A cases, and they were told not to use interest balancing. Then we got interest balancing.

They were told in Heller and refused to obey as they are duty and oath bound to do. They were told again in Caetano, and still refused to obey.

This time they were told in no uncertain terms. Failure to faithfully abide the clear and well iterated edicts of the Supreme Court is nothing but contempt by the contemptible. If they persist with this outright disobedience, then it becomes time for the only power out there which can do so, to put a stop to it.

At present they have done nothing except make false statements to the Court. That Court needs to take this matter into its hands and rebuke those who did this. Failure to do so puts that Court into the same league as the rogues once again except it is no longer a secret conspiracy to undermine the highest Court, it is an open and nefarious act of moral turpitude.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I've told him for years that this would eventually happen. I just lost a few battles throughout the war.

I am skeptical.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

I am skeptical.

Ya, but you're like that about everything

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Ya, but you're like that about everything

When FGG says we will win, then yes, I predict a win. Until then.. I'll believe it when I see it.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

When FGG says we will win, then yes, I predict a win. Until then.. I'll believe it when I see it.

FGG? When was the last time he posted? Especially since the tides changed?

Fabio lost his skin in this game.

[colossians323]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

When FGG says we will win, then yes, I predict a win. Until then.. I'll believe it when I see it.

The good ol' days. I miss all the CG banter

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by taperxz

FGG? When was the last time he posted? Especially since the tides changed?

He posted in the NYSRPA vs Bruen thread after the decisions was released by SCOTUS

[Epaphroditus]

FGG is just here to troll CGF.

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

FGG is just here to troll CGF.

Seems like a pretty good reason to me. They deserve all the trolling anyone can dish out. My sig is a direct reminder to everyone of their history of nonsense.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by moleculo

He posted in the NYSRPA vs Bruen thread after the decisions was released by SCOTUS

Just looked that up. It’s still a strange relationship though since he doesn’t say much. Plus FPC has put up some wins like Miller

FPC has an entirely different team than what CGF was operating with too

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

FGG is just here to troll CGF.

Disagree.

[Fyathyrio]

Is FGG one of the lawyers on this case? One of the plaintiffs? Maybe the arresting officer? NO?!? Than can we maybe take the where's Waldo discussion to the off topic area of the forum and leave this thread to deal with updates on topic, please?

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Fyathyrio

Is FGG one of the lawyers on this case?

He is a direct indication of how the State feels about plaintiffs, and his stance is identical to the ones taken by the Courts when blatantly defying logic and reason, and now, lately, SCOTUS. And yes, he may well be working (or previously worked) for the State. His opinion has nearly 100% predictive accuracy.

[FirearmFino]

Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Opposition to Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing en Banc (PDF)

Plaintiffs-appellants’ Petition Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (PDF)

[marcusrn]

Yeah, I don't think it's cricket to give machine guns to<21 year olds in military and police and not let civilian militia 18-20s have same access. It's bogus and untenable and should be unenforceable. Would young Bill Ares, Ted Nugent, or Barry Sotero stand for this buggery?

[Spartan5305]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/decision-...181222907.html

Now the 9th is even reversing itself just to keep the bans in place hahahah I told you all nome of you serfs will ever be free!

[9Cal_OC]

[CGZ]

Looks like they remanded it back down to district courts
("In a brief order, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals returned the case to a federal trial judge ..."),
as they have been doing with many other 2A cases that were on hold pending NYSRPA v. Bruen. It's a stall tactic and not indicative of the final outcome.

9th's Remand Order

[Spartan5305]

Hahaha it's not indicative that both the original trial court and the 3 judge appeals ruled correctly via text history and tradition, now all the 9th is gonna do is keep reminding all cases when it gets to them back to the 9th. Nobody cab force the court to take the case and nobody can force them to make a ruling so it's limbo forever boys!

[abinsinia]

Now that they vacated the appeals ruling and sent it back to the district court it should allow the ban on 18-20 to stay in place for another year or so.

It all about delay delay delay these days.

[67Cuda]

What rock did this person crawl from under?

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Spartan5305

Hahaha it's not indicative that both the original trial court and the 3 judge appeals ruled correctly via text history and tradition, now all the 9th is gonna do is keep reminding all cases when it gets to them back to the 9th. Nobody cab force the court to take the case and nobody can force them to make a ruling so it's limbo forever boys!

A homeless dude at the gas station was telling me about a business plan he was working on in order to change his life and asked for some change.

He made much more sense than this "analysis" of yours.

[M1A Rifleman]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Now that they vacated the appeals ruling and sent it back to the district court it should allow the ban on 18-20 to stay in place for another year or so.

It all about delay delay delay these days.

Yep. Pray the conservative take control the next two elections, otherwise, the dems will stack and change the court to eliminate the 2nd. This is their only option at this point.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Spartan5305

Now the 9th is even reversing itself just to keep the bans in place hahahah I told you all nome of you serfs will ever be free!

SCOTUS GVR-ed several gun cases in light of Bruen. The "R" stands for "remand." I guess the SCOTUS is *also* trying to keep us serfs in line by remanding cases, right?

I mean, you're so right today that you're going to be on TV.

[Ned Ryerson]

A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday set aside its decision that California's ban on selling semiautomatic weapons to adults under 21 was unconstitutional, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that changed how judges must evaluate firearms laws.

I'm glad to see that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is at least acknowledging that there is a new judicial standard that must now be applied in evaluating 2nd Amendment cases. This will work to our advantage in all future cases.

[D.A.V.I.D.]

oh that fed is on here posting again.

[vino68]

Clearly a millennial or gen z.

[1911RONIN]

Mods : Clean up needed in aisle 4


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk