Miller v. Bonta, SDCA - "assault weapons"

[Brbecker]

Originally Posted by Maverick237

We might get a response right before the holidays, or around Thanksgiving if we're lucky.

Thank you !

[Brbecker]

Thank you

[GW]

Good luck with this, folks. I hope this goes our way.

[foreppin916]

Lets get a freedom week out of this as well! That would be amazing, Start poking holes in the ****ing retarded gun laws one at a time.

And then when an emergency injunction is put into place and appealed to the 9th, we can all cry again!

[EvoXguy]

Any updates ?

[bigstick61]

Someone posted on ARFCOM that there is a hearing on this case today.

[Maverick237]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

Someone posted on ARFCOM that there is a hearing on this case today.

From what the DOJ filed with their motion to dismiss the court will hear this case on Dec. 16, 2019 at 10:30 AM or earlier. I see no update on any official sites that the court hearing was today.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Maverick237

From what the DOJ filed with their motion to dismiss the court will hear this case on Dec. 16, 2019 at 10:30 AM or earlier. I see no update on any official sites that the court hearing was today.

The person in question stated a little while ago that they were in error and misread a FPC email on the subject.

One thing I did notice looking at all of this is that PC3510, the Roberti-Roos make/model ban and the source for the AR/AK series ban, do not appear to be addressed by this lawsuit. Am I mistaken in reading the complaint this way? If not, was the exclusion of these parts of the AWB an oversight/mistake, or deliberate? If the latter, why?

[L.A. Saiga]

Sweet! thanks for posting this

[FirearmFino]

Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages of Briefs Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez: Granting 17 Joint Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages of Briefs Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

NOTICE of Change of Hearing on 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Certain Claims in First Amended Complaint MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim : Motion Hearing reset for 12/18/2019 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ler-v-becerra/

[SteveH]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages of Briefs Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez: Granting 17 Joint Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages of Briefs Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

NOTICE of Change of Hearing on 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Certain Claims in First Amended Complaint MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim : Motion Hearing reset for 12/18/2019 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ler-v-becerra/

What does this mean? other than kicking the can further down the road...

[FirearmFino]

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF PATRICK RUSS

[Brbecker]

That’s strange. I wonder why he backed out? I hope it’s nothing sketchy.

[Solidsnake87]

Wtf? Could someone in the know please provide some explanation?

[NorCalRT]

Originally Posted by Solidsnake87

Wtf? Could someone in the know please provide some explanation?

Patrick Russ is no longer a plaintiff. Still other plaintiffs, stay calm.

[Solidsnake87]

Thanks for the explanation, I was definitely demoralized for a minute there. Battered gun owner syndrome is a real thing.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by Solidsnake87

Wtf? Could someone in the know please provide some explanation?

Originally Posted by Solidsnake87

Thanks for the explanation, I was definitely demoralized for a minute there. Battered gun owner syndrome is a real thing.

Dude, if ya woulda just clicked the link to the PDF it clearly states "Plaintiff’s withdrawal operates as a dismissal of the action, without prejudice; and it
applies only to Plaintiff Patrick Russ (and no other Plaintiff named in this action). "
Tis only two pages long.

[FirearmFino]

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

[AdvJunkie]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

It looks to me the GOOD GUYS aka plaintiffs were able to review NYSRPA v. NYC orals prior to submitting this. MAD CREDIT TO THEM FOR BEING ON POINT!


Also FirearmFino, thank you over and over for staying on top of recent filing on so many different 2a cases.

Whats every one's take? Is their house of cards falling? At Least until it makes it to the 9th...

Also, would it be appropriate to change the title of the thread to reflect:

Miller v. Becerra, SDCA - Challenging the ban on certain "assault weapons"

Cheers!

[pc_load_letter]

Originally Posted by Brbecker

That’s strange. I wonder why he backed out? I hope it’s nothing sketchy.

Would be a shame if he was affiliated in some roundabout way to Sheriff Captain Garmo and his shenanigans.

[FirearmFino]

Motion for preliminary injunction

[Brbecker]

Does this the motion to dismiss has been removed from dec 16 to January 16, or is January 16 the date the case actually will be heard ?

[taperxz]

I find it hard to believe this thread isn’t getting more response. This is a really big deal!

[AdvJunkie]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I find it hard to believe this thread isn’t getting more response. This is a really big deal!

I couldn’t agree more! Curious if this is strategic timing... I suspect a ruling may come over the holidays when a lot of anti’s could possibly be off work..... leaving a larger window of freedom before it’s halted… the same as Duncan....Fingers crossed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gunuser17]

Probably not many posts because it is just way to early in the process. Only the opening preliminary injunction brief has been filed. I would be surprised if the dated hearing in January is ready to proceed then. Defendants could ask to present witnesses and that always complicates scheduling if more than just a simple hour or two argument is needed. Even if it does proceed, you could easily wait several months for a decision. Realistically, the odds of a preliminary injunction being granted are slim - not zero - but preliminary injunctions are always tough to get. To me, the discussion of the last three factors on whether to grant a preliminary injunction seem thin.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by gunuser17

Probably not many posts because it is just way to early in the process. Only the opening preliminary injunction brief has been filed. I would be surprised if the dated hearing in January is ready to proceed then. Defendants could ask to present witnesses and that always complicates scheduling if more than just a simple hour or two argument is needed. Even if it does proceed, you could easily wait several months for a decision. Realistically, the odds of a preliminary injunction being granted are slim - not zero - but preliminary injunctions are always tough to get. To me, the discussion of the last three factors on whether to grant a preliminary injunction seem thin.

Do you realize that this same exact judge gave us an injunction on high cap mags this year?

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Do you realize that this same exact judge gave us an injunction on high cap mags this year?

He didn't give us a preliminary injunction. He waited to rule that standard capacity magazines are legal. He then let people order and dragged his feet a bit granting an injunction on his ruling but legalizing everyone that ordered magazines.

My guess is there is a slim chance we see a PI but get a favorable ruling quickly. Then an injunction when it goes to the ninth. The best in the short term is he writes the injunction to keep BB and allows standard capacity magazines while the ninth looks for ways to screw us.

[Sputnik]

I'll just watch and see how Benitez rolls with this case. I've had my hopes up before and so far, besides "freedom week" mags, I have not seen great strides forward in the reclamation of our 2A freedoms.
I'm not thinking that it can't or won't happen...I just haven't seen it yet.

[mcbair]

Probably more people following than is readily apparent. Some folks are not commenters.

[Brbecker]

What’s everyone’s best guess on when there will actually be a ruling?

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

He didn't give us a preliminary injunction. He waited to rule that standard capacity magazines are legal. He then let people order and dragged his feet a bit granting an injunction on his ruling but legalizing everyone that ordered magazines.

My guess is there is a slim chance we see a PI but get a favorable ruling quickly. Then an injunction when it goes to the ninth. The best in the short term is he writes the injunction to keep BB and allows standard capacity magazines while the ninth looks for ways to screw us.

No! It was indeed a Prelimjnary Injunction.

In a short six-page order released Thursday afternoon, Benitez ruled his 2017 preliminary injunction enjoining the state from requiring high-capacity magazine owners to turn over their previously legally-acquired firearms should be reinstated, pending the appeal.

[gunuser17]

I do understand that it is the same judge. But it is a different lawsuit that has no threatened confiscation of the firearms at issue. I believe what amounted essentially to a confiscation of the magazines at issue is what drove the earlier case. That issue isn't present in the sporting rifle case and allowing the law to stand will not change anyone's circumstances since no one is being threatened with having a rifle taken tomorrow that was legal to possess today. Now, we may not like the stupid California rifle rules but that's not enough to get a preliminary injunction in my opinion.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by gunuser17

I do understand that it is the same judge. But it is a different lawsuit that has no threatened confiscation of the firearms at issue. I believe what amounted essentially to a confiscation of the magazines at issue is what drove the earlier case. That issue isn't present in the sporting rifle case and allowing the law to stand will not change anyone's circumstances since no one is being threatened with having a rifle taken tomorrow that was legal to possess today. Now, we may not like the stupid California rifle rules but that's not enough to get a preliminary injunction in my opinion.

Not so fast. The judge found the entire law unconstitutional, irrespective of the threat of confiscation. His ruling, if upheld, will allow 10+ mags to be sold here--just not the handguns that can hold them!

[Brbecker]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Not so fast. The judge found the entire law unconstitutional, irrespective of the threat of confiscation. His ruling, if upheld, will allow 10+ mags to be sold here--just not the handguns that can hold them!

And if you found the whole law unconstitutional there is a good chance in my opinion he will find The assault weapons law unconstitutional.

[3006]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I find it hard to believe this thread isn’t getting more response. This is a really big deal!

All most 23,000 view's

[EM2]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I find it hard to believe this thread isn’t getting more response. This is a really big deal!

Originally Posted by 3006

All most 23,000 view's

Most of us are just following along.
Not a lawyerly type, but do want to stay informed.

[darkwater34]

tracking

[Thordo]

Originally Posted by Brbecker

What’s everyone’s best guess on when there will actually be a ruling?

Patience. This is a marathon not a sprint. We've been waiting a lot of years for judges and courts that are, not just willing to hear 2A cases, but actually rule in favor of the Constitution.

Although!! An injunction for Christmas would be a nice present from Santa!!

Thordo

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by gunuser17

I do understand that it is the same judge. But it is a different lawsuit that has no threatened confiscation of the firearms at issue. I believe what amounted essentially to a confiscation of the magazines at issue is what drove the earlier case. That issue isn't present in the sporting rifle case and allowing the law to stand will not change anyone's circumstances since no one is being threatened with having a rifle taken tomorrow that was legal to possess today. Now, we may not like the stupid California rifle rules but that's not enough to get a preliminary injunction in my opinion.

How can you possibly say confiscation is not a part of the AWB? You didn’t read, did you? The request for PI is based on confiscation through attrition. Registering an AW leads to confiscation since it can’t be transferred to someone’s heirs.

Instead of basing your argument on your opinion. I suggested that you read the law, then the lawsuit and the the request for PI. You’re not even close to reality.

[A-J]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I find it hard to believe this thread isn’t getting more response. This is a really big deal!

Originally Posted by mcbair

Probably more people following than is readily apparent. Some folks are not commenters.

For threads like this, I assume a majority of folks here are like me and do not want to clutter it with replies that are not relevant or on point. Make no mistake - the people that care about the issue are watching the thread closely, as I assume the opposition is.