Renna v Bonta - US Dist Ct So Cal, 11/2020 (Roster aka Peña II)

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Aldo The Apache

All hope is lost in California. No one in the free states are bitting their nails, anxiously waiting on the courts to give the poors crumbs or any at all. I’m outta this ****-hole of a state. Y’all can keep waiting for the courts to turn the other cheek, sending donations, paying 3x retail for “off rosters”, 10 day waits, ammo backgrounds, skyrocketing ammo prices and fighting uphill battles toward annihilation til there’s nothing left. As for me: I’ll save all of that for ammo, gear and training in a free state. Ghost, deuces, two fingas - I’m out

Ha!

Compare these two maps to see all the CCW progress we’ve made WITHOUT a CCW/Bear court case win. We went from ~60k CCWs to >120k (2018) (and AFTER that we won San Diego Co, Sonoma Co and LA Co).

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by johnireland

There is no place/state to run to. The SCOTUS will be packed, and then guns will be ruled by Executive Orders. The Constitution is dead.

It’s not like 42 states are now Shall Issue and 21 of them are also Constitutional Carry….

[Nvberinger]

Wednesday, November 10, 2021
Gun Lobby Challenge to California Handgun Roster Advances
It's the first legal challenge to a new California rule that requires the removal of three grandfathered handguns for every new gun added to the roster of guns that can be sold in the state.

BIANCA BRUNO / April 26, 2021

https://www.courthousenews.com/gun-l...ster-advances/

SAN DIEGO (CN) --- A federal judge found California’s new handgun law provision requiring the removal of three grandfathered handguns for every new handgun added to its list of guns that can be sold in the state “substantially infringes” Californians’ ability to purchase handguns for self-defense.

U.S. District Chief Judge Dana Sabraw found the “three-to-one” provision of California’s Unsafe Handgun Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, “imposes a greater restriction on the pool of handguns available for sale in California” and may violate the Second Amendment.

“The court is not persuaded there is a ‘reasonable fit’ between the state’s asserted objective and the three-for-one provision,” Sabraw, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote.

“Defendants offer no justification for why the statute requires the removal of three handguns for each new handgun added, i

[DB>]

There's NEVER been a "reasonable fit" for most KA gun laws.... too bad it's taking outrageous legislative overreach to get judges to finally SEE it.

[DanMedeiros]

Good! I'm hoping a strong decision in NYSRPA can get rid of this scrutiny garbage. It's so intellectually corrupt to argue that the pistols that are safe enough for cops to carry are unsafe for us plebs. Especially so when they are just update more reliable models of ones currently available (Gen 3 vs Gen 5 Glock and m&p shield plus)

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Nvberinger

Wednesday, November 10, 2021
Gun Lobby Challenge to California Handgun Roster Advances
It's the first legal challenge to a new California rule that requires the removal of three grandfathered handguns for every new gun added to the roster of guns that can be sold in the state.

BIANCA BRUNO / April 26, 2021

https://www.courthousenews.com/gun-l...ster-advances/

SAN DIEGO (CN) --- A federal judge found California’s new handgun law provision requiring the removal of three grandfathered handguns for every new handgun added to its list of guns that can be sold in the state “substantially infringes” Californians’ ability to purchase handguns for self-defense.

U.S. District Chief Judge Dana Sabraw found the “three-to-one” provision of California’s Unsafe Handgun Act, ….

Folks, this is all BS. The linked source took an old article from last April and slapped a new introductory paragraph on it and republished it for click bait. Bill Wiese posted about this court action on 2021 April 27 in post #41. Sorry but there’s no new news or movement in this case.

[CCWFacts]

So, what's next for this case in light of the SCOTUS ruling and the GVRs?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

So, what's next for this case in light of the SCOTUS ruling and the GVRs?

they have to request the judge to reinstate/reconsider the original claims, which was the roster is unconstitutional. That was dismissed before the NYSRPA case.

[JiuJitsu]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

they have to request the judge to reinstate/reconsider the original claims, which was the roster is unconstitutional. That was dismissed before the NYSRPA case.

Exactly. And I don't know if the judge has to do this - but it seems they should.

Reconsidering the dismissal of this part of the current active case should be mandatory in my opinion since the entire basis for the original roster decision is now considered improper (intermediate scrutiny) per the Bruen decision. The judge's recent dismissal of the part challenging the entire roster in the current case simply denies the plaintiff the ability to challenge that constitutionality. That seems egregious. But hey, this is the 9th Circuit...so I guess I should expect these shenanigans.

[JiuJitsu]

Next conference on this case will be July 29th. Hopefully we'll see some push to restore the challenge to the roster itself now that Bruen was decided.

Regardless, this case may not be resolved until Spring 2023 based on the dates they provided previously. I assume they did that to give ample time for the potential effects of Bruen and all the other 2A cases pending.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc

[abinsinia]

they should also request preliminary injunction.

[johnireland]

The Marxists/Democrats are playing for time. If they hold one or both of the House and Senate this year, and hold the WH in 2024...natural attrition will put the SCOTUS back in the liberal camp, and the 2nd Amendment and all the rest of the Constitution will be dead. One can even argue that after the 2020 election, it was only a matter of time...that America is in a permanent vegetative that it can never recover from. And the plug will be pulleld on life support sooner than we all think.

[JiuJitsu]

Yea, a preliminary injunction should be a tool used (or at least requested) MUCH more often in my opinion. These cases are all but doomed for the State under the new 2A criteria. I don't see how they could pass any reasonable text, history and tradition test.

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

Next conference on this case will be July 29th. Hopefully we'll see some push to restore the challenge to the roster itself now that Bruen was decided.

Regardless, this case may not be resolved until Spring 2023 based on the dates they provided previously. I assume they did that to give ample time for the potential effects of Bruen and all the other 2A cases pending.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc

I'm guessing that I'm misunderstanding what is going on with this case.

To me it looks like the case has been abandoned and they are just finishing up the proceedings to put the final nail in the coffin.

It doesn't look like the plaintiff(s) is pursuing the case and the lawyers quit their representation.

So rather than reviving wouldn't they have to re-file the case and proceed from there? I'm not asserting that this is how it would have to go - I'm asking.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

It doesn't look like the plaintiff(s) is pursuing the case and the lawyers quit their representation.

Seems that way. This case is dead dead looks like. We'll have to start all over again, for the 3rd time.

Really, though, the plaintiffs need to do a much better job of forum shopping the next time around.

[JiuJitsu]

Post #72 from abinsinia shows the last major scheduling change for this case that I saw. It contains a ton of pre-trial dates for things to be submitted throughout 2022. It looks like the actual trial is scheduled to start on March 20, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.

So yea, this is a slow roll. But it IS an active case preparing for trial. And this pace may work in our favor. The Bruen case was decided, which changed everything. I'm sure the lawyers in this case are all over this one, watching other 2A cases happening now, and preparing their offense accordingly. I am cautiously optimistic.

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

Post #72 from abinsinia shows the last major scheduling change for this case that I saw. It contains a ton of pre-trial dates for things to be submitted throughout 2022. It looks like the actual trial is scheduled to start on March 20, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.

So yea, this is a slow roll. But it IS an active case preparing for trial. And this pace may work in our favor. The Bruen case was decided, which changed everything. I'm sure the lawyers in this case are all over this one, watching other 2A cases happening now, and preparing their offense accordingly. I am cautiously optimistic.

Hopefully it is still in question and it was only Bailey who quit as plaintiff?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

Hopefully it is still in question and it was only Bailey who quit as plaintiff?

The judge ruled that the old roster laws couldn't be challenged because another case, Pena, had already done that. That was before NYSRPA v. Bruen.

All that will come back.

[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ]

Anyone notice the Joint Stipulation and Motion to Vacate Scheduling Order filed today? It's at https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.45.0.pdf

Among other things,

The parties further stipulate and agree that Plaintiffs will file a second amended complaint on or before August 22, 2022, with the case to thereafter proceed in accordance with the process and timelines set forth in the applicable rules.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Anyone notice the Joint Stipulation and Motion to Vacate Scheduling Order filed today? It's at https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.45.0.pdf

On June 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in New
York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, __ U.S. __, 142 S.Ct. 2111
(2022), and significantly changed the legal landscape in Second Amendment cases
by establishing a new framework for analyzing Second Amendment claims.
Bruen is already impacting other cases involving Second Amendment claims.
See e.g., McDougall v. Ventura County, Ninth Circuit case no. 20-56220 (reversing
and remanding for further proceedings consistent with Bruen); Martinez v.
Villanueva, Ninth Circuit case no. 20-56233 (same); Nguyen v. Bonta, case no. 3:20-
cv-02470-WQH-MDD (ordering supplemental briefing and inviting submission of
supplemental evidence on pending cross-motions for summary judgment, so as to
address the proper resolution of the claims in light of Bruen’s impact on the analysis).
It is also expected that Bruen will significantly impact the manner in which
the Second Amendment claims are resolved here. Accordingly, the parties stipulate
and agree that the current Scheduling Order (ECF No. 30; ECF No. 32) be vacated,
and they respectfully request the Court’s consent to do so for good cause under FRCP
rule 16(b)(4).

IT'S ALIVE


HOPEFULLY the state won't be saying the same for their 2A INFRINGMENTS after the dust settles.

[OleCuss]

I'm hoping the prevail!

[JiuJitsu]

That is GREAT news. Their amended complaint will allow them to update all this in light of the Bruen decision and I predict will make it nearly impossible for the state to defend any of this under the new criteria.

[JiuJitsu]

Also, hopefully the new schedule for this trial will be happening sooner than it was originally scheduled. They seemed to initially push it out far into 2023 to allow SCOTUS time on their 2A decisions/actions. That has been achieved. So let's get this rolling since all parties know this will not survive text, history, and tradition scrutiny.

[abinsinia]

The judge vacated the current schedule on 7/22, except they will have a status conference on July 29, and

Plaintiffs must file a second amended complaint on or before August 22, 2022

[kuug]

I honestly can't believe how slow this case is being strung along. Bruen came out in June and this Trump judge doesn't even have a status conference until September? I don't even see a motion for summary judgment or preliminary injunction to slow the process down. Even with the same Heller analysis we've had since 2008 and it's been two years of dragging feet

[abinsinia]

I would suspect the slowness is why we got the Boland case.

[Elgatodeacero]

It is a little unfair to fault the judge…… judge has given the Plaintiffs 3 weeks to file an amended complaint, then the defense gets 30 days to respond, so late September is when the case will be ready to move forward.

The judge is not slow walking this.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I would suspect the slowness is why we got the Boland case.

This case was shelved pending NY/Bruen. Both parties agreed to this.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

This case was shelved pending NY/Bruen. Both parties agreed to this.

prior to Bruen even getting heard the date was set to 2023 (back in 2021). I'm not sure why the Judge set a 2023 date, but it was scheduled for a hearing a long long way out.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

prior to Bruen even getting heard the date was set to 2023 (back in 2021). I'm not sure why the Judge set a 2023 date, but it was scheduled for a hearing a long long way out.

Probably to keep it off his 2021 and 2022 calendar as he can always change the schedule once something happens with NYSRPA.
Like now.

[cleonard]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

It is a little unfair to fault the judge…… judge has given the Plaintiffs 3 weeks to file an amended complaint, then the defense gets 30 days to respond, so late September is when the case will be ready to move forward.

The judge is not slow walking this.

They should be asking for a TRO as the state is clearly going to lose.

[Elgatodeacero]

Originally Posted by cleonard

They should be asking for a TRO as the state is clearly going to lose.

I agree with this, but the Plaintiff has to file the motion, the judge won’t act on his own initiative.

It is common practice to file the new complaint and a motion for TRO at same time, so maybe Aug 22 will see multiple filings.

[Roswell Saucer]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

I agree with this, but the Plaintiff has to file the motion, the judge won’t act on his own initiative.

It is common practice to file the new complaint and a motion for TRO at same time, so maybe Aug 22 will see multiple filings.

Agreed. TRO would almost certainly be granted.

[abinsinia]

They are suppose to file an amended complaint on Aug. 22 per this filing,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.45.0.pdf

I would assume they will also file a TRO or PI at that time. So it should be another week or so before we see movement.

The Boland case has a response due at a similar time around Aug. 23

[f80vm]

A TRO or PI against the roster would be a catastrophic event for my wallet.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

prior to Bruen even getting heard the date was set to 2023 (back in 2021). I'm not sure why the Judge set a 2023 date, but it was scheduled for a hearing a long long way out.

FPC filed AB for Bruen 1/21 2021

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by f80vm

A TRO or PI against the roster would be a catastrophic event for my wallet.

Only if you are exempt from 1/30

For me it will be like a nuke went off in my wallet. 03+COE FTW

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

FPC filed AB for Bruen 1/21 2021

What's AB?

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

What's AB?

Amicus Brief

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Amicus Brief

How does that related to the 2023 scheduling for this case ?