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

[curtisfong]

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.

You're fine. Do your thing. As you can see, I agree with you, and I'm 100% prepared to be proven wrong.

[kuug]

Originally Posted by taperxz

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

That's not what Thomas said, Justice Thomas was making the point that those bans were relatively few in codified law but they have steadily multiplied and nobody has challenged them since early America, we can assume their validity as sensitive places. That's not the same as what you're conveying.

Originally Posted by Justice Thomas

Although the historical record yields rela-
tively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where
weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative as-
semblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also
aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such pro-
hibitions. See D. Kopel & J. Greenlee, The “Sensitive
Places” Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229–236, 244–
247 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Ami-
cus Curiae 11–17. We therefore can assume it settled that
these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying
could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amend-
ment. And courts can use analogies to those historical reg-
ulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern reg-
ulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and
analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by kuug

That's not what Thomas said, Justice Thomas was making the point that those bans were relatively few in codified law but they have steadily multiplied and nobody has challenged them since early America, we can assume their validity as sensitive places. That's not the same as what you're conveying.

Those places must be in line historically though. They can’t just be made up places that cover in general public places.

[kuug]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Those places must be in line historically though. They can’t just be made up places that cover in general public places.

Correct, that's why I mentioned they have been present since early America without challenge

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by kuug

Correct, that's why I mentioned they have been present since early America without challenge

Even bans in legislative areas are new. Legislators up until recently have been able to carry a gun

[kuug]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Even bans in legislative areas are new. Legislators up until recently have been able to carry a gun

not according to Clarence Thomas, concerning public carry in legislatures

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by kuug

not according to Clarence Thomas, concerning public carry in legislatures

It has been banned for decades in the US Senate after a pitched gun battle in the Senate cloak room. And "bad language" was banned to keep another from starting.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by IVC

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. [/B]

I never said Bruen wouldn't go in our favor so don't generalize

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). That isn't a win, but nice try. That's a participation trophy because we still lost. . 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. You had one week where you were able to buy LCM's and god help you if you get caught with a magazine that wasn't produce before freedom week but, hey if that's your definition of a win then good for you. 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.

You've kind of proven my point. These small victories you site are illusory and not meaningful.

But OK, here's my prediction mate. The roster WILL be ruled unconstitutional. In ten years. But it won't be the Renna case. Hope you live long enough to see it my friend.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by kuug

That's not what Thomas said, Justice Thomas was making the point that those bans were relatively few in codified law but they have steadily multiplied and nobody has challenged them since early America, we can assume their validity as sensitive places. That's not the same as what you're conveying.

This is correct and will ultimately be the defenses argument. I'm old enough to remember the year 1881 where saloon owners required you to take your gun off before entering. At least I feel that I'm old enough.

[fudd]

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

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.

They say that technicalities are the soul of the law. Which is true when you consider all the machinations that courts go through in order for the outcome to turn out the way they want it to.

The problem with that method is that the court isn't really dealing in the technicalities of the law, they're manipulating the system to achieve that desired outcome regardless of what the law/evidence show. Eventually that methodology catches up with them, as Bruen has now laid bare in the area of gun rights and the 2-step the courts devised to "technically" get around Heller and its progeny.

Unfortunately, that won't apply in this case IF the State does what it often fails to do because this is a case of technicalities.

Be prepared for a loss. We can hope to get a win, but the odds are that this is a loss all the way up the food chain.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

You've kind of proven my point. These small victories you site are illusory and not meaningful.

But OK, here's my prediction mate. The roster WILL be ruled unconstitutional. In ten years. But it won't be the Renna case. Hope you live long enough to see it my friend.

If you don't count the intermediary wins as wins, then you can't count the intermediary losses as losses, which in turn would mean all the losses and machinations in the 9th wouldn't count as losses and we'd only have "wins in the court" after we finally get the full relief from the SCOTUS. Doesn't work that way, obviously.

And "freedom week" was a huge win for us not only because it practically stopped the enforcement of the LCM ban, but because it showed there were judges who would treat 2A as a fundamental civil right. In a few weeks, that same judge will be making some updated rulings. And "getting caught with an old magazine" is just more pessimism since the enforcement of the statute is stopped at the moment.

But if your guess is "ten years," then we have you on record and you now have skin in the guessing game. Based on your pessimism, I assume you mean "ten or more years," not "up to ten years" (if not, please write down the minimum timeframe you're predicting). And you're saying Renna is going nowhere, so that's another prediction on the record.

(As a side issue, I never claimed **you** said Bruen would be a loss, only that there were more than enough members like you, who live by "let's be a pessimist so either I'm correct, or we win and I don't care I'm wrong." It's a weakling mentality in the battle.)

[GrampaJoel]

Originally Posted by rplaw

They say that technicalities are the soul of the law. Which is true when you consider all the machinations that courts go through in order for the outcome to turn out the way they want it to.

The problem with that method is that the court isn't really dealing in the technicalities of the law, they're manipulating the system to achieve that desired outcome regardless of what the law/evidence show. Eventually that methodology catches up with them, as Bruen has now laid bare in the area of gun rights and the 2-step the courts devised to "technically" get around Heller and its progeny.

The court system has ALWAYS been manipulated by the politicians. The democrats want the Supreme Court balanced in their favor. The republicans want the same.
The truth is, that if they don’t get the results they want.
They change the laws , or else as in the case of Some states, they simple ignore the laws.
It’s how their system works.
The wonder is that anyone trusts, or believes, in the court systems at all.

[JiuJitsu]

I believe there should be an amended complaint submitted for this case today in light of Bruen. Not sure if there's a schedule set for what comes after that.

I am just happy that we now have TWO active cases in process to strike down the handgun roster.

[JiuJitsu]

Amended complaint posted.

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

[Luciansulla]

Nice. They’ve updated the suit to go after both 1327 and 1621, not just the roster.

[ritter]

That amended complaint just slams the state. Good on them for taking on SB 1327. That steamer is one of the worst anti gun laws to come out of the state since it virtually closes 2A legal challenges for the average person.

[JiuJitsu]

Yea, they thoroughly hammered the state on this one. This was a huge opportunity post-Bruen and they took every advantage. It was a very well-written complaint and request for injunction with lots of text, history and traidition references to back everything up. I would think a judge would read all that and find it very hard to justify not providing some level of injunctive relief, especially in light of Bruen. I am cautiously optimistic. But we shall see.

[taperxz]

Yep, added a retailer

[abinsinia]

In the Boland case they got a 30 day extension to respond.. The summons for Bonta was filed today. I wonder if Bonta will request an extension for this case also.

[bruss01]

Very well written, easy enough for an educated layman to understand.

Multiple issues addressed - the roster, self-manufacture (parts, 80% etc), and 1327 (pay your opponents legal fees if you lose ONE word of a claim).

A representative of the CA DOJ should be embarrassed to stand up and try to argue against the claims in this brief. What are they going to do, stand up in court and make an argument equivalent to "... but your Honor, defendants maintain adamantly that green is actually a shade of purple..." or something equally absurd and ludicrous.

I am impressed with the thoroughness of this brief, they approached the issues from every conceivable angle. A court would have to twist the law into a pretzel to try to uphold the roster and these related laws.

[Loiterer]

Pretzels and writing is all in the wrist....

[moleculo]

Does anyone have any Intel on the firm representing the plaintiffs in this case? A quick Google search didn't reveal much.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by moleculo

Does anyone have any Intel on the firm representing the plaintiffs in this case? A quick Google search didn't reveal much.

The NC firm represented the plaintiffs in McDougall v. Ventura (COVID gun store closures) and lost.

The other seems to be a personal injury firm.

I don't know anything else about them, but confess I haven't really dug deeper. Hoping that if I do, it won't worry me.

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by Luciansulla

Nice. They’ve updated the suit to go after both 1327 and 1621, not just the roster.

(d) None of the following are a defense to an action brought under
subdivision (c): (1) A prevailing party under this section failed to seek recovery of attorney’s fees or costs in the underlying action. (2) The court in the underlying action declined to recognize or enforce the requirements of this section. (3) The court in the underlying action held that any provision of this section is invalid, unconstitutional, or preempted by federal law, notwithstanding the doctrines of issue or claim preclusion.
(e) Any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief as described in subdivision (a), shall not be deemed a prevailing party under this section or any other provision of this chapter.

So, heads the state wins, tails the citizen loses.

It's quite audacious to suggest that a state law can overcome the 1st Amendment protection of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Quite remarkable that only the state can prevail for attorney's fees. And it looks like if they lose in Federal court, such as at the Supreme Court, they intend to file a separate civil court action in California state courts.

There is a federal statute that allows recovery of attorney's fees when a citizen sues over a civil rights issue and prevails. LA County and the State of California are paying attorney's fees to some churches they illegally shut down for example.

https://californiaglobe.com/articles...-court-losses/

https://www.foxla.com/news/los-angel...ed-covid-rules

Who is the idiot legislator who thinks that a law continues to be valid after adjudicated unconstitutional?

EDIT: I guess I'm not surprised. Some states tried to use lawsuits to bankrupt civil rights organizations like the NAACP, too. Ultimately they lost badly. This legislation targets other 2A civil rights organizations the same way states targeted the NAACP. Those states also used state courts to try and bankrupt the NAACP, but ultimately lost in Federal court and at the Supreme Court. See NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware.

[ar15barrels]

Is this the first you are hearing about the sneaky Code of Civil Procedure 1021.11?

Originally Posted by Foothills

So, heads the state wins, tails the citizen loses.

It's quite audacious to suggest that a state law can overcome the 1st Amendment protection of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Quite remarkable that only the state can prevail for attorney's fees. And it looks like if they lose in Federal court, such as at the Supreme Court, they intend to file a separate civil court action in California state courts.

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

Is this the first you are hearing about the sneaky Code of Civil Procedure 1021.11?

Indeed it is. I'm not an attorney and cannot provide legal advice - particularly when it comes to civil procedure.

I do read a lot of Supreme Court and Appellate opinions though.

For tort reform it is often suggested that a "lower pays" rule be enacted. It kind of has been for civil rights litigation. Oberlin is digging in their heels after losing a defamation case. Two of the plaintiffs already died, and the business may go under.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/ohio-...illion-verdict

[abinsinia]

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to Respond to SAC and to File Answer by Xavier Becerra, Robert Bonta. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proof of Service)(Boutin, Gabrielle) (Entered: 08/26/2022)

This joint motion was filed today. Both parties want more time.

[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ]

Plaintiffs filed a motion for TRO/preliminary injunction. It specifically addresses SB1327 and AB1621.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...378.53.0_1.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...378.53.1_1.pdf

[abinsinia]

It looks like they are only requesting an injunction against the "CNC Ban" and the fees against the attorneys.

I don't know if that TRO request covers the roster. They don't talk about it in the request.

[ritter]

1021.11 needs to be enjoined post hast--it kills the ability to challenge 2A issues in court. Well argued. Thanks for posting.

[Flight4]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

It looks like they are only requesting an injunction against the "CNC Ban" and the fees against the attorneys.

I don't know if that TRO request covers the roster. They don't talk about it in the request.

Does not cover roster, only CNC equipment because it will make current CNC owners criminals in 2 weeks.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by Flight4

Does not cover roster, only CNC equipment because it will make current CNC owners criminals in 2 weeks.

"2 weeks" - that's what Iggy used to say

[abinsinia]

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher: The September 23, 2022 Status Conference is vacated. The Court will reset the Status Conference after Defendants file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 49) and the Hon. Dana M. Sabraw rules on Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 53).(no document attached) (kxb) (Entered: 09/22/2022)

The judge terminated hearings till the TRO is ruled on, and Bonta responds to the complaint (due Oct. 6)

[NorCalBusa]

I think we need "Special Masters" for all these 2A cases- things seem to tolerate less BS.

[abinsinia]

RESPONSE in Opposition re 53 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Xavier Becerra, Robert Bonta. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proof of Service)(Boutin, Gabrielle) (Entered: 09/23/2022)

New entry on the docket.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.56.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Rob Bonta

Here, the Bruen analysis ends at the initial textual examination because the
Second Amendment’s plain text does not cover AB 1621’s prohibition of CNC
milling machines.

It seems like the same pattern, they claim the conduct is outside the 2A protection instead of looking at history. I guess if you have no history that, the only way to do it.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

New entry on the docket.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.56.0.pdf

It's disingenuous at the very least. In my opinion it's actually worse than that because claiming that preventing the CNC home manufacture of "ghost guns" doesn't prevent a citizen from bearing that ghost gun and therefore doesn't impact the 2A at all, is probably THE most ridiculous argument I've ever read in a brief.

[Flight4]

Compiling such a historical record is no easy task. It must be undertaken by trained historians through painstaking efforts just to identify the sources available to them in order to answer a particular historical inquiry. See Declaration of Zachary Schrag, Miller v. Becerra, No. 3:19-cv-1537-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2022), ECF No. 129-1 at 2-5. Even identifying which sources are available does not necessarily mean that those sources are available to be accessed, read, and analyzed. Id. at 5-10. Once those sources are accessed, the process of putting together findings is also incredibly time consuming, comprising potentially hundreds or even thousands of hours depending on the inquiry. Id. at 10-12.

It is thoroughly California perverse to use such argumentation considering that under Bruen laws restricting the 2A are presumptively unconstitutional unless THT clearly overturns that presumption. Are their faces not red?

One would think it is backwards to first pass and enforce the presumptively unconstitutional law, then subsequently beg and cry for weeks/months/years to research and argue why the THT rebuts the presumption of unconstitutionality (because it is "no easy task" and so "painstaking" and "incredibly time consuming").

Aren't these laws unconstitutional UNTIL they are firmly established to be constitutional?

Bruen:

This Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights. Take, for instance, the freedom of speech in the First Amendment, to which Heller repeatedly compared the right to keep and bear arms. 554 U. S., at 582, 595, 606, 618, 634–635. In that context, “[w]hen the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.”

[Flight4]

More Bonta logic:

And, the harm from having to relinquish a CNC milling machine is not irreparable, because it is possible to obtain a replacement machine if the prohibition is ultimately deemed unconstitutional.

and:

Plaintiffs will still have plenty of avenues, other than CNC milling machines, to obtain firearms for self-defense while this litigation proceeds.

I have seen this rationale again and again from the state and the 9th CCoA: "Was there any alternative [weapon, ammunition, store, etc.] available? If so, who cares, there is no harm to the plaintiff's rights."