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

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

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

Possibly a calendar to figure out where both parties wanted to start?? Yet it has now been pushed up??

I swear, there’s way too many conspiracy theorists here. Where were you when Peña to…11 years???

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

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

You said Bruen played no role. It did. They picked a calendar date to figure when issues were to be resolved. Ok, 2023. Now that things are ripe, the judge is ready. WTF is the problem?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

You said Bruen played no role. It did. They picked a calendar date to figure when issues were to be resolved. Ok, 2023. Now that things are ripe, the judge is ready. WTF is the problem?

I did not say that.

Here is what I said,

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.

scheduling for Renne happened in September 2021, prior to Bruen being heard. We don't know what effect Bruen had on this case.

[JiuJitsu]

It will be interesting to see how this case moves forward in parallel with the other roster case, Boland v. Bonta. I'm cool with either one as long as the bull**** roster is struck down eventually. I guess it comes down to which courts slow roll this more by basically trying to avoid the inevitable.

But one thing is all but certain...the roster will not pass the constitutuonal test of text, history and tradition.

At best CA will try to say that the 2nd amendment doesnt apply to the roster or something asinine since there is simply no history of such stupid restrictions. Their arguments are going to be ridiculous. Can't wait to read it.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

Only if you are exempt from 1/30

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

Same here.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I did not say that.

Here is what I said,



scheduling for Renne happened in September 2021, prior to Bruen being heard. We don't know what effect Bruen had on this case.

Waiting for Duncan, Duncan waiting for NY ect. Just like every other 2A case.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

It will be interesting to see how this case moves forward in parallel with the other roster case, Boland v. Bonta. I'm cool with either one as long as the bull**** roster is struck down eventually. I guess it comes down to which courts slow roll this more by basically trying to avoid the inevitable.

But one thing is all but certain...the roster will not pass the constitutuonal test of text, history and tradition.

At best CA will try to say that the 2nd amendment doesnt apply to the roster or something asinine since there is simply no history of such stupid restrictions. Their arguments are going to be ridiculous. Can't wait to read it.

Don't be so sure. I can think of at least one way to support the roster that has a solid historical basis in both society and law. There may be other ways, but the one I have in mind cannot be beat by the THT test from Bruen.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by rplaw

Don't be so sure. I can think of at least one way to support the roster that has a solid historical basis in both society and law. There may be other ways, but the one I have in mind cannot be beat by the THT test from Bruen.

We saw in the NAGR case a kernel of history may be enough in the 9th.

[JiuJitsu]

Ok, if one gets creative enough with mostly unrelated history any attempt can be made to justify. Sure.

But I would think in both cases you guys point out (or have in mind) such attempts are or would be completely non-firearm related analogies. Is there any significant, widely used, specifically firearm-related law in text, history and tradition?

It seems that mostly unrelated non-firearm analogies are all that is possible to justify any of these anti-2A laws at this point. Just sayin'.

[JiuJitsu]

Or attempts by the state to assert that the issue is not even protected by the 2A. Which is even more ridiculous.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by rplaw

Don't be so sure. I can think of at least one way to support the roster that has a solid historical basis in both society and law. There may be other ways, but the one I have in mind cannot be beat by the THT test from Bruen.

I can't get past how they say that the guns on the roster are "safe" and then law enforcement is exempt of the roster.
If there's anyone that we want to have the most "safe" handguns, it's the people that have to carry they all day for work!

This alone proves that the roster is not about safety at all.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

This alone proves that the roster is not about safety at all.

Again the problem is that the language of law appears to be English.

It isn't. It only only bears a superficial resemblance.

The legislature is free to define any word to mean anything it wants to.

This includes even very simple words like "safe".

When lawyers chide laymen for being uneducated in the law, what they really mean is, "stop assuming the language of law is English".

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by rplaw

Don't be so sure. I can think of at least one way to support the roster that has a solid historical basis in both society and law. There may be other ways, but the one I have in mind cannot be beat by the THT test from Bruen.

I can see the roster remaining in its original form and the same way revolvers are only tested when dropped.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I can see the roster remaining in its original form and the same way revolvers are only tested when dropped.

This implies the roster was always about "safety" when we know it never was.

It also implies the outcome of all of this will be rational.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

This implies the roster was always about "safety" when we know it never was.

It also implies the outcome of all of this will be rational.

OMG
No!
What is being said here is that it very possible that the State may have an interest in making sure that the handgun is actually safe to use for the consumer. Not as much as trying to make sure it’s safe from dumb mistakes by the owner but to make sure it’s safe from a manufacturers defect.

At the end of the day, the State will get their pound of yearly flesh.

There is precedence where a state can in fact control some commerce. Mag disconnects and micro stamping are a stretch. Loaded chamber indicator is a toss up. The state could keep an approved roster as long as it’s not an infringement on the actual right. Weeding out guns that discharge without user intent would be presumably not infringing on the right.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by taperxz

What is being said here is that it very possible that the State may have an interest in making sure that the handgun is actually safe to use for the consumer. Not as much as trying to make sure it’s safe from dumb mistakes by the owner but to make sure it’s safe from a manufacturers defect.

As I said, that would actually be rational legislation (regardless of your feeling about whether it infringes or not). To that extent, California is not interested, as evidenced by the fact that the "safe" handgun roster was never about safety.

The intent was always to curtail handgun ownership, in particular, in minorities and the poor.

I'm basically saying that yes, your position is rational, but it isn't what CA wants. And what CA wants, CA gets.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

As I said, that would actually be rational legislation (regardless of your feeling about whether it infringes or not). To that extent, California is not interested, as evidenced by the fact that the "safe" handgun roster was never about safety.

The intent was always to curtail handgun ownership, in particular, in minorities and the poor.

I'm basically saying that yes, your position is rational, but it isn't what CA wants. And what CA wants, CA gets.

You’re not getting it. It’s all CA and the Roster has left to stand on. This will more than likely be the outcome of any court case in regards to the Roster.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by taperxz

This will more than likely be the outcome of any court case in regards to the Roster.

I doubt this, as i've said many times. The 9th will continue to give Bonta whatever he wants, including fixing whatever flaws in his case he presents, in the hopes that eventually SCOTUS will swing back to where CA needs it to be.

I hope I'm wrong.

[JiuJitsu]

The problem with any potential "safe handgun" roster - whether truly about safety, good intentions or not - is that in the hands of certain political groups it will always eventually be abused. This CA roster is the perfect example.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

I doubt this, as i've said many times. The 9th will continue to give Bonta whatever he wants, including fixing whatever flaws in his case he presents, in the hopes that eventually SCOTUS will swing back to where CA needs it to be.

I hope I'm wrong.

You are wrong. There is really no way out for the state or the 9th.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by taperxz

You are wrong. There is really no way out for the state or the 9th.

BS. They will find a way. A perfect example is the San Jose mandatory insurance case where the judge recently denied the stay. Just look at how the judge twisted the "historical" analysis in this case to say that text and tradition allows the city to impose the insurance requirement and that purchasing mandatory insurance isn't a burden on 2A rights. Your comments are naïve.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

Again the problem is that the language of law appears to be English.

It isn't. It only only bears a superficial resemblance.

The legislature is free to define any word to mean anything it wants to.

This includes even very simple words like "safe".

When lawyers chide laymen for being uneducated in the law, what they really mean is, "stop assuming the language of law is English".

I think I'd make hay out of Scalia's "English" in Heller. I'm paraphrasing but he said "words have meaning" and "they mean what they were understood to mean at the time they were ratified".

The CA Legislature, Governors and AG's Orwellian attempts aside.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

BS. They will find a way. A perfect example is the San Jose mandatory insurance case where the judge recently denied the stay. Just look at how the judge twisted the "historical" analysis in this case to say that text and tradition allows the city to impose the insurance requirement and that purchasing mandatory insurance isn't a burden on 2A rights. Your comments are naïve.

Listen new guy. When denial of a stay by a low level judge prior to hearing the case, it doesn’t mean much. Get back to me when you understand a little more about how this game is played out. Bruen is like the beginning of the end of this war in todays world. There will still be battles to get the enemy in line

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Listen new guy

e.g. "Large" re-defined to mean >10, when I can't think of a single reasonable, informed person agreeing that >10 is even remotely out of the ordinary enough to be called "large", when clearly terms like "standard" are more univerasally agreed upon (as far as using the English language, in any case).

And we can agree "Assault weapon" is a completely ludicrous term by pretty much any real life, English definition metric.

"Gun free school zones" are demonstrably not "gun free". The list goes on and on.

I think you're being overly optimistic that the court system cares about real logic and is willing to be constrained by English definitions.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Listen new guy. When denial of a stay by a low level judge prior to hearing the case, it doesn’t mean much. Get back to me when you understand a little more about how this game is played out. Bruen is like the beginning of the end of this war in todays world. There will still be battles to get the enemy in line

210 posts and I'm the new guy. LOL. Seems your logic is about what I thought it was.

A "historical" analysis of past judicial precedent should be enough, but yet you still put your faith in the courts, despite it all. I'm sure you were saying the same thing about Heller.

Half of the public doesn't think SCOTUS is legitimate. When there is that kind of division, you bet your *** that lower courts will try and get around their decisions. You must live in cave.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

210 posts and I'm the new guy.

Yeah.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

210 posts and I'm the new guy. LOL. Seems your logic is about what I thought it was.

A "historical" analysis of past judicial precedent should be enough, but yet you still put your faith in the courts, despite it all. I'm sure you were saying the same thing about Heller.

Half of the public doesn't think SCOTUS is legitimate. When there is that kind of division, you bet your *** that lower courts will try and get around their decisions. You must live in cave.

Yes you are the new guy and starting to sound a little bit like a troll now. So maybe you should go start a Debbie Downer thread of your own - I think your defeatist position has been made clear so I'm not sure why you're still in here beating that drum so hard.

We get it already - you have no hope. Noted for the record. Now let's get on to something else.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

210 posts and I'm the new guy. LOL.

Yup... stop trolling and start reading son.

[Lanejsl]

Ok I'll stop now. Too many unicorns and rainbows and rose colored glasses in this thread.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

And we can agree "Assault weapon" is a completely ludicrous term by pretty much any real life, English definition metric.

Over the years I changed my view of "assault weapon" language. As much as it would rub me the wrong way in the past, it's now a term that I embrace. The antis put a lot of effort and market research into this term, to build a whole branch of gun control based on "messaging" using what they consider an "extremely negative term." The mere inclusion of "assault" in the weapon definition was their strategy to sell it to the local soccer moms.

Now I just say: "it's an assault weapon and assault weapons are protected by the Constitution." And when it falls in CA, I'll continue to call those guns "assault weapons" and I'll make sure the other side knows that "assault weapons are protected."

This will help with "assault rifles" in the future. The ignorance and lies about "assault weapons" will be a benefit to us since we'll just swap sides and now we'll be the ones to say that the "assault rifles" are the same as the "assault weapons" and therefore they are already protected.

[Loiterer]

I'll stick my neck out here,

Start reading is often put out for an answer here same as low post count. If folks would think for a minute maybe someone is reading more than posting.

Not saying I agree or disagree with anyone but do low post counts get a say or is this just those that will agree?

Trying to figure out if I should post, read only or post a bunch of emojis.

I don't mean to stir up anything but curious.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

Ok I'll stop now. Too many unicorns and rainbows and rose colored glasses in this thread.

You need to make some specific predictions so we can evaluate your "opinion" in a year or two.

There were people claiming that it's all "unicorns and rainbows" that SCOTUS would take a 2A case, that it was all "rose colored glasses" that we would get a strong opinion, that we will lose Bruen or that it will be watered down the Kennedy way. Well, they were wrong and we can now go back to those posts and **prove** them wrong. There were people who didn't believe we could get a win in 9th at all, then we got a few major 3-judge panel wins (since overturned, but the wins some believed were "unicorns and rainbows" to begin with). We have had a freedom week and large caps are pretty much a non-issue at the moment, yet pessimists and losers still claim the sky is falling. We have cases going back to Benitez and we have people claiming he'll suddenly rule for Bonta. We have all sorts of claims around here.

So, what's your specific prediction? Give us some details so we can see whether you were right or full of it.

[Loiterer]

I have been accused as being right and full of it both, my point is I read more for information than make statements. Such actions appear to be looked down on here.

I also know than anything to do with law/legal moves very slow. I know that perception and how thing are translated are at times twisted ((like our constitution) and often the intent doesn't come through like it should.

Just kinda asking if post count decides how serious a statement is to be taken.

Things have changed and I have more time for different things.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by Loiterer

I'll stick my neck out here,

Start reading is often put out for an answer here same as low post count. If folks would think for a minute maybe someone is reading more than posting.

Not saying I agree or disagree with anyone but do low post counts get a say or is this just those that will agree?

Trying to figure out if I should post, read only or post a bunch of emojis.

I don't mean to stir up anything but curious.

I have no problem with low count members. But, when they insist their interpretation is correct despite evidence to the contrary, they're not just "low count" members, they're trolls trying to stir up trouble.

Don't try to make trouble and you'll probably do all right in your daily life. The same rule applies here. We know there are trolls and DOJ spies among us. Which means the next rule is that we don't talk about Fight Club.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by taperxz

You are wrong. There is really no way out for the state or the 9th.

Maybe.

It really depends a lot, a seriously whole lot, on how the State and the Courts frame it. BUT, if they do it correctly, the State will prevail in the end. This isn't a dire prediction, the State has shown time and time again that they're fools in the courtroom, but that also doesn't mean that they can't figure it out. Especially if we help them by pointing/discussing the possibility.

So I'm not going to say how this could be done. You shouldn't say or speculate on it either.

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by Loiterer

I'll stick my neck out here,

Start reading is often put out for an answer here same as low post count. If folks would think for a minute maybe someone is reading more than posting.

Not saying I agree or disagree with anyone but do low post counts get a say or is this just those that will agree?

Trying to figure out if I should post, read only or post a bunch of emojis.

I don't mean to stir up anything but curious.

Low post count is like twitter users citing number of followers for credibility. But also like on twitter, there are individuals engaged in the discussion of ideas who do zero work to attract followers. Yes, pretty women will have a TON more followers. But does that make them an expert in specific national defense fields?

The people who truly are experts probably are not trying to draw attention to their accounts as it would interfere with their client relationships.

[kuug]

Lanejsl does have a point. Bruen was a strong opinion but the majority did not readily define what a sensitive place or what was precisey historically analogous. Oh sure they said it was a place historically barred from public carry in like schools and courts. But that vague description allows lower courts to keep playing subjective games in order to declare this place and that are sensitive places. The same goes with what is historically analogous test. Lower courts, like the judge in San Jose, will just declare this restriction or that ban historically analogous based on incredibly generous comparisons to old laws. The real test for whether Bruen will actually work to protect Heller and the 2nd amendment is whether the Court goes dormant for another 12 years. If they don’t take a 2A case up every year or two like they do with first or fourth amendment cases then lower courts will continue to play games, to lie about the standard, and to uphold every gun control law that comes before them just as they have always done.

These lower courts, they have no integrity. They have no professional standards. They want to use the courts to declare the 2A, Heller, and Bruen null and void. If the justices go dormant, we are screwed. Or they could not go dormant and burn the lower courts to the ground for their defiance. I sincerely hope it’s the latter, and until I see otherwise I will hold out hope that is the case. But I will not hold out hope that lower courts will change until they receive a SCOTUS opinion so harsh that it offers them no subjective wiggle room.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by rplaw

Maybe.

It really depends a lot, a seriously whole lot, on how the State and the Courts frame it. BUT, if they do it correctly, the State will prevail in the end. This isn't a dire prediction, the State has shown time and time again that they're fools in the courtroom, but that also doesn't mean that they can't figure it out. Especially if we help them by pointing/discussing the possibility.

So I'm not going to say how this could be done. You shouldn't say or speculate on it either.

I agree in sorts. They are still playing long game but they are missing the language that they completely abused in past cases, "especially in the home" This was a farce that they abused by using it out of context. They rode that pony all the way to NY/Bruen. It appears Thomas has sewn that up though.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by kuug

Lanejsl does have a point. Bruen was a strong opinion but the majority did not readily define what a sensitive place or what was precisey historically analogous. Oh sure they said it was a place historically barred from public carry in like schools and courts. But that vague description allows lower courts to keep playing subjective games in order to declare this place and that are sensitive places. The same goes with what is historically analogous test. Lower courts, like the judge in San Jose, will just declare this restriction or that ban historically analogous based on incredibly generous comparisons to old laws. The real test for whether Bruen will actually work to protect Heller and the 2nd amendment is whether the Court goes dormant for another 12 years. If they don’t take a 2A case up every year or two like they do with first or fourth amendment cases then lower courts will continue to play games, to lie about the standard, and to uphold every gun control law that comes before them just as they have always done.



These lower courts, they have no integrity. They have no professional standards. They want to use the courts to declare the 2A, Heller, and Bruen null and void. If the justices go dormant, we are screwed. Or they could not go dormant and burn the lower courts to the ground for their defiance. I sincerely hope it’s the latter, and until I see otherwise I will hold out hope that is the case. But I will not hold out hope that lower courts will change until they receive a SCOTUS opinion so harsh that it offers them no subjective wiggle room.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Historically, there were no sensitive places. Just bans. Thomas made a point to point that out.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by rplaw

the State has shown time and time again that they're fools in the courtroom

My point has always been that that doesn't actually matter. The courts invariably either rubber stamp what the State says, or actually *literally* fix the defects in their case for them.

I think Bonta is aware of this (or should be, anyway). He could file a bucket full of hairballs and used kitty litter as part of an "emergency" demand and the court will somehow convert it into a win for them.