Renna v Bonta - US Dist Ct So Cal, 11/2020 (Roster: PI granted and stayed 3-31-23)

[curtisfong]

// Well, I'd love to change the title to "Roster: PI granted and stayed 3-31-23" but the database will not let me. - Librarian

========= 3-31-2023 =========
https://t.co/iprbXy0m6B

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS the following: (1) Plaintiffs? motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED as to California Penal Code ?? 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions); (2) Plaintiffs? motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as to all other challenged provisions of the UHA; (3) Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing California Penal Code ?? 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions); (4) posting of bond is waived; and (5) the preliminary injunction is STAYED pending appeal or further hearing on this matter, whichever occurs first.
The Court sets the matter for a telephonic status conference on April 14, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., at which time the parties shall advise the Court how they wish to proceed.

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploa...-ECF-Filed.pdf

Since the “unsafe handgun” regulatory scheme last faced a legal challenge in Pena v. Lindley, 898 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2018)(cert. denied June 15, 2020 sub nom. Pena v. Horan), wherein the Ninth Circuit, effectively applying rational basis, upheld a prior version of the laws challenged herein, the State of California’s legislature recently enacted an expansive amendment to California’s Handgun Ban in Assembly Bill No. 2847 (2019 –2020 Reg. Sess.) (“AB 2847”) that makes it ever more onerous, inter alia, by requiring the Defendants’ Department of Justice to remove three firearms from the Roster that are not compliant with its current requirements for every single new firearm added to the roster. In essence, under California’s Handgun Ban, the Roster of available handgun makes and models will be reduced three times for each new model added to the Roster.

[9mmContagion]

Let’s hope this one goes somewhere

[mshill]

The state can always argue that it is impossible to add anything to the roster so the lawsuit is moot.

[M60A1Rise]

Settled 10 years from now when no one will care anymore. I'm all for law & justice but damn our system needs an overhaul badly. America where a court case will last your lifetime

[kuug]

Originally Posted by M60A1Rise

Settled 10 years from now when no one will care anymore. I'm all for law & justice but damn our system needs an overhaul badly. America where a court case will last your lifetime

More specifically it's the 9th circuit that needs the overhaul. Even with 29 active judges we cannot get cases done in a timely manner. The 9th circuit needs to be split up.

[gumby]

Originally Posted by kuug

More specifically it's the 9th circuit that needs the overhaul. Even with 29 active judges we cannot get cases done in a timely manner. The 9th circuit needs to be split up.

I’ve been saying this for years.

[thebowser]

I'm always happy to see more challenges to these ridiculous laws brought forth, but damn is it disheartening knowing we're still 5-10 years from a final resolution. The supreme court, while potentially leaning in our favor currently, very well could be leaning left again by the time this case makes it there, if the dems haven't already packed the court by then.

[mit31]

Not likely unless one party controls all three houses, AND has fillibuster proof majority. So... never.

Originally Posted by kuug

More specifically it's the 9th circuit that needs the overhaul. Even with 29 active judges we cannot get cases done in a timely manner. The 9th circuit needs to be split up.

[Offwidth]

Unfortunately the process of fixing the 9th circuit is on hold for now. Lets hope Kamala administration does not revert it too badly in the next four years until we can conduct a fair election.

[riderr]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

Unfortunately the process of fixing the 9th circuit is on hold for now. Lets hope Kamala administration does not revert it too badly in the next four years until we can conduct a fair election.

Unfortunately, all we can hope for is to freeze the current state of CA9 for the next four years.

[kuug]

Originally Posted by mit31

Not likely unless one party controls all three houses, AND has fillibuster proof majority. So... never.

Yes we all know it's not likely to happen, you don't need to remind us. It doesn't change the fact it needs to happen.

[IVC]

It's important to get the ball rolling again since we've had a huge shift in the balance of the SCOTUS.

Unlike the initial Pena, this case will be likely heard after an expected SCOTUS ruling on one of the many cases that are ripe for a cert, which will limit the ability of the lower court to play games. There are AWB and magazines cases getting ready and it won't be pretty for the anti-gunners.

As an example, we have recently won the magazine case in CA-9. They (Becerra, Thomas) are considering the usual treatment of "en banc-ing" us, but this time it would lead to an easy SCOTUS case that would take magazine capacity bans off the table nationally. So, we either get the magazine ban overturned in CA-9 jurisdiction by letting the current ruling stand, or we wait a few more months and get *all* magazine bans overturned, together with a framework for evaluation of 2A cases by the lower courts.

This is going to be an exciting time for the 2A rights, no matter what happens with the current presidential election. Good things are coming...

[cire raeb]

Originally Posted by IVC

It's important to get the ball rolling again since we've had a huge shift in the balance of the SCOTUS.

Unlike the initial Pena, this case will be likely heard after an expected SCOTUS ruling on one of the many cases that are ripe for a cert, which will limit the ability of the lower court to play games. There are AWB and magazines cases getting ready and it won't be pretty for the anti-gunners.

As an example, we have recently won the magazine case in CA-9. They (Becerra, Thomas) are considering the usual treatment of "en banc-ing" us, but this time it would lead to an easy SCOTUS case that would take magazine capacity bans off the table nationally. So, we either get the magazine ban overturned in CA-9 jurisdiction by letting the current ruling stand, or we wait a few more months and get *all* magazine bans overturned, together with a framework for evaluation of 2A cases by the lower courts.

This is going to be an exciting time for the 2A rights, no matter what happens with the current presidential election. Good things are coming...

The clowns running the state and 9th Circus would smart to let their anti-gun laws die in the lower courts than risk losing it all nationwide.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by cire raeb

The clowns running the state and 9th Circus would smart to let their anti-gun laws die in the lower courts than risk losing it all nationwide.

Your mistake is assuming they care about the eventual outcome. What they care about is the *perception* that they are fighting. They want to be able to (plausibly) say they did all they could. To that end, expect them to fight to the bitter end, even it means to their (apparent) detriment.

Now, a chess player (or anyone else very good at competition, or even an AI) would see that deviation from optimal play as a weakness, and exploit it fully. Full steam ahead.

[kuug]

Originally Posted by IVC

It's important to get the ball rolling again since we've had a huge shift in the balance of the SCOTUS.

Unlike the initial Pena, this case will be likely heard after an expected SCOTUS ruling on one of the many cases that are ripe for a cert, which will limit the ability of the lower court to play games. There are AWB and magazines cases getting ready and it won't be pretty for the anti-gunners.

As an example, we have recently won the magazine case in CA-9. They (Becerra, Thomas) are considering the usual treatment of "en banc-ing" us, but this time it would lead to an easy SCOTUS case that would take magazine capacity bans off the table nationally. So, we either get the magazine ban overturned in CA-9 jurisdiction by letting the current ruling stand, or we wait a few more months and get *all* magazine bans overturned, together with a framework for evaluation of 2A cases by the lower courts.

This is going to be an exciting time for the 2A rights, no matter what happens with the current presidential election. Good things are coming...

Don't get your hopes up that it will happen this term. By my estimation, unless the Court is willing to make one of the prohibited persons cases under their docket, then we likely won't get desirable 2A case in front of the Supreme Court until the October 2021-June 2022 term. Young v Hawaii won't be published until late spring or around summer and that would mean no SCOTUS involvement until the October 2021 term. ANJRPC v Grewal is the big one that we need to be looking at. In the third circuit the case is currently seeking en banc review of the panel decision that NJ mag bans are constitutional. We have a big advantage in the third circuit currently but if the judges do not seek en banc review we can expect an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court. That would put ANJRPC v Grewal in the running to be granted cert, have oral arguments, and had an opinion published this term in June 2021. Duncan probably has another two years going through 9th circuit en banc hell before it gets an opportunity to seek cert at the Supreme Court.

[IVC]

^^^ Agreed, it's not an immediate and instant gratification, but we are on the correct path and better days are now all but inevitable.

All the strategic pieces are in place and it's a matter of time when the dominoes start to fall. And fall they will. Fast. (If we have the majority we think we do, of course, but that's a reasonable bet now.)

[kuug]

Originally Posted by IVC

^^^ Agreed, it's not an immediate and instant gratification, but we are on the correct path and better days are now all but inevitable.

All the strategic pieces are in place and it's a matter of time when the dominoes start to fall. And fall they will. Fast. (If we have the majority we think we do, of course, but that's a reasonable bet now.)

Barring an untimely passing of Thomas or Alito the Democrats can do nothing to stop us. We have 50 Republicans in the Senate minimum and Joe Manchin, the Democrat from West Virginia, has vowed that there will be no leftist nonsense like court packing or undoing the filibuster under his watch. That means there's a minimum of 51 no votes on both issues. The courts can go full steam ahead if they wish.

[dogrunner]

Do NOT place any trust in Manchin..........I grew up in the same area as he and have very close friends that know him..............all characterize him as self serving and opportunistic......stating he will roll whichever way the wind blows!

One stated to me just yesterday in a phone conversation that the only reason he was elected was that there was no realistic alternate choice!

[gumby]

^^^^^^^^^^^typical politician, they are all that way.

[hoystory]

For those who are interested, or have friends who are unfamiliar with these lawsuits, the handgun roster, etc. I have a summary of how we got where we are today, and why the future with Renna will likely be different than the earlier Pena case.

https://restrictedarms.com/2020/11/g...andgun-roster/

Feedback is always welcome.

[champu]

Originally Posted by IVC

^^^ Agreed, it's not an immediate and instant gratification, but we are on the correct path and better days are now all but inevitable.

The Ninth could just sit on Young, Duncan, Rhode, etc. indefinitely at the en banc or “should we en banc” levels waiting for SCOTUS to change.

[kuug]

Originally Posted by champu

The Ninth could just sit on Young, Duncan, Rhode, etc. indefinitely at the en banc or “should we en banc” levels waiting for SCOTUS to change.

It would be a wasted effort, other circuits are not nearly as slow. Cases are going through the second and third circuits as well as a revival of NJ state court case challenging NJ's Justifiable Need standard for licenses. Eventually we will get that big 2A ruling and the 9th will have no choice in the matter.

[USMCM16A2]

Meh.

[pacrat]

I see what I believe to be much more than the usual glimmer of hope with this case.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...in-common-use/

First up...

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

That is Saint Benitiz territory. And with the 9th Circus rule of "like or similar cases" going before judge of current case. It will likely be before his bench.

Second up.........It is being filed on the grounds of an existing SCOTUS finding.

"IN COMMON USE" from Heller. Which CrapOfornia has historically ignored. This is a new angle of attack.

We shall see if the 9th Circus gets away with its former BS "rational basis" crap.

For decades the leftist have killed our 2A rights with incremental "DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS" Agenda.

We must do the same to them in the only arena available to us trapped behind enemy lines. THE COURTS. Yes, it takes many battles to win big wars. But if you quit fighting, you can't ever win. Or even maintain what rights are left to us.

[abinsinia]

A %99 semi-auto handgun ban can't survive legitimate scrutiny .

[kuug]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

A %99 semi-auto handgun ban can't survive legitimate scrutiny .

Of course not, but that won't stop the 9th circuit from trying

[cre8nhavoc]

At this point I am no longer going to hold my breath hoping and anticipating that a frivolous state requirement infringing on our second amendment right will be overturned by ANY court in the state, district, or federally. The same can be said for getting a Republican governor in California ever again, because as we all know, all it takes is a governors signature to abolish handgun roster.

At this point I'll keep counting my blessings and continue to convince the family that it may be time to move out of the state.

[johnireland]

Moving out of state won't save us if/when Biden/Harris put through a "wealth tax" like France's. The gross value of what you own, wherever you own it, will be taxed by the federal government. Gavin wants to tax Californians when/if they leave the state. And with the push to get everyone out of cash and into digital banking and currency, all they have to do is freeze your assets and starve you into submission.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

A %99 semi-auto handgun ban can't survive legitimate scrutiny .

You forget that the 9th only has to say "we agree with whatever the State says" and that's that.

[FirearmFino]

MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Bestguns]

The Plaintiffs’ Opposition fried the Defendants’ Motion.

[steelrain82]

This part really stood out to me,

Surely, “we would never sanction governmental banning of allegedly
‘inflammatory’ views expressed in Daily Kos or Breitbart on the grounds that the people
can still read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.” Id. at 1159-60.

Except now they do. The government has allowed "platforms" to ban "inflammatory views" because there are other options to get those views. Then the government allows those options to be banned as well (Parler).

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

Your mistake is assuming they care about the eventual outcome. What they care about is the *perception* that they are fighting. They want to be able to (plausibly) say they did all they could. To that end, expect them to fight to the bitter end, even it means to their (apparent) detriment.

Now, a chess player (or anyone else very good at competition, or even an AI) would see that deviation from optimal play as a weakness, and exploit it fully. Full steam ahead.

Your mistake is assuming they will lose at SCOTUS. There’s no reason to assume that, other than there are more “conservative” justices. That still doesn’t guarantee they will take gun cases.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Your mistake is assuming they will lose at SCOTUS.

You totally misunderstood my post then.

I have zero confidence in any positive outcome, ever.

[johnireland]

Originally Posted by kuug

More specifically it's the 9th circuit that needs the overhaul. Even with 29 active judges we cannot get cases done in a timely manner. The 9th circuit needs to be split up.

What about the old saying, "Justice delayed is justice denied." Or a fair and speedy trial. Can't that be used to force the court to do its job?

[abinsinia]

Should we contact the lawyers for this case to let them know Microstamping was removed from the criteria for the roster till July 2022 ?

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1696504

[BaronW]

IMO it doesn’t really affect this case - the status quo will be restored 7/1/22 which is basically tomorrow on the geological timescale of litigation.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by BaronW

IMO it doesn’t really affect this case - the status quo will be restored 7/1/22 which is basically tomorrow on the geological timescale of litigation.

Yep... it's like saying "The restraining order request is moot because the husband promised he would stop beating his wife until after December 31st"

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

When do we expect the next movement in this case? (and skip the lame “two weeks!” jokes)

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Paladin

When do we expect the next movement in this case? (and skip the lame “two weeks!” jokes)

OK........................THREE WEEKS THEN!