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

[abinsinia]

2: The De Facto Ban on Self-Manufacture and Assembly
3: EQUAL PROTECTION
4: RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH/PETITION/REDRESS
5: RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION
6: PREEMPTION U.S. CONST., ARTICLE VI – SUPREMACY CLAUSE
7: RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

It only leave ONE count not dismissed, and I think that's the roster they called it "The purchase ban".

[Drivedabizness]

Any of the legal beagles care to explain what this means? Ideally the Plaintiffs are not conceding defeat?

[FreemanG]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Any of the legal beagles care to explain what this means? Ideally the Plaintiffs are not conceding defeat?

My guess is they are concerned about the new legal fee shenanigans CA is trying to pull and want to remove anything they feel they might not ultimately win.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by FreemanG

My guess is they are concerned about the new legal fee shenanigans CA is trying to pull and want to remove anything they feel they might not ultimately win.

Or that they struck a deal that for dropping 2-7 that 1021.11 will not apply to their case.
The state will likely be making deals on individual cases to NOT get a case to undo 1021.11 so quickly.

[Drivedabizness]

Thanks. I don't see the need for our side to "make deals" on any of this crap. But IANAL so I'll defer - for now.

[FreemanG]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Thanks. I don't see the need for our side to "make deals" on any of this crap. But IANAL so I'll defer - for now.

Well the problem is if our side wins 99% of the arguments but the court still sides with the state on the last 1% our side is now liable for all of the legal fees from both parties. I think until that is overturned you will see less broad cases being presented.

[michigander]

I think the second amended complaint expanded the scope of the complaint pretty significantly. For instance, the de-facto self-manufacture ban was not in the original complaint and it honestly seemed like that was suddenly more of the focus of the case post-Bruen when the original focus was the roster. It seems more effective to me to have suits like these tailored to specific goals. I think there will no doubt be a separate self-manufacture suit.

[f80vm]

Originally Posted by michigander

I think the second amended complaint expanded the scope of the complaint pretty significantly. For instance, the de-facto self-manufacture ban was not in the original complaint and it honestly seemed like that was suddenly more of the focus of the case post-Bruen when the original focus was the roster. It seems more effective to me to have suits like these tailored to specific goals. I think there will no doubt be a separate self-manufacture suit.

Agreed. I’d much rather focus on the monstrosity that is the handgun roster and leave self manufacture to a separate lawsuit.

[michigander]

I’m actually kind of pissed at the plaintiffs litigation team. Should have stayed focused. We‘re losing 2+ months because they have to not submit another and complaint.

[Socal_Jack]

Can we at least make a political deal over the microstamping thing? Its pretty slam dunk as its a technology that doesn't exist. Should be easy bait for pundits right?

[abinsinia]

Amended complaint filed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.67.0.pdf

Looks like one count, and it's basically just the whole roster framework.

[ngnrnlo]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Amended complaint filed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.67.0.pdf

Looks like one count, and it's basically just the whole roster framework.

I don’t get it. Instead of challenging the constitutionality of the roster and seeking to invalidate it, they want to enjoin bonta from enforcing it?!?

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Amended complaint filed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.67.0.pdf

Looks like one count, and it's basically just the whole roster framework.

The complaint states at paragraph 2, page 2, lines 23-25 that "Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated members of Institutional Plaintiffs, cannot purchase new constitutionally protected arms without suffering criminal liability..." How so with respect to the individual plaintiffs? Where are they prohibited from purchasing off roster handguns? How so with respect to the institutional plaintiffs who can purchase off roster handguns for resale to exempt individuals?

[JiuJitsu]

I interpreted the amended complaint as now wanting to both strike down the roster as unconstitutional AND get an injunction on enforcing it while it is pending in the courts. This seems reasonable as it clearly violates constitutional rights and doesn’t pass the Heller/Bruen test of text, history and tradition.

[JohnnyDangerously]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

The complaint states at paragraph 2, page 2, lines 23-25 that "Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated members of Institutional Plaintiffs, cannot purchase new constitutionally protected arms without suffering criminal liability..." How so with respect to the individual plaintiffs? Where are they prohibited from purchasing off roster handguns? How so with respect to the institutional plaintiffs who can purchase off roster handguns for resale to exempt individuals?

They are referring to the members of those organizations such as CPRA.

[ngnrnlo]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

I interpreted the amended complaint as now wanting to both strike down the roster as unconstitutional AND get an injunction on enforcing it while it is pending in the courts. This seems reasonable as it clearly violates constitutional rights and doesn’t pass the Heller/Bruen test of text, history and tradition.

That’s Boland v bonta
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...83&postcount=8

[JiuJitsu]

No, this case now as well. It says it directly in the amended complaint and where they ask for relief.

[ngnrnlo]

No it doesn’t. Here is their prayer for relief. It only asks for an injunction against enforcement, not nullification of the law.



“PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
1. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ enforcement of the laws, regulations, policies, practices, and customs underlying the purchase prohibitions of the Handgun Ban prevent Individual Plaintiffs, Retailer Plaintiffs’ customers, and similarly situated Institutional Plaintiffs’ members who are not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights from purchasing new constitutionally protected arms, in violation of their right to keep and bear arms protected under the
Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
2. An injunction restraining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in concert or participation with them, and all persons who have notice of the injunction, from enforcing the purchase prohibitions of the Handgun Ban;
3. Attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable law;
4. That this Court retain jurisdiction after judgment for the purposes of resolving any future fee disputes between the parties and issuing further appropriate injunctive relief if the Court’s declaratory judgment(s) is/are violated; and,
5. All other and further legal and equitable relief, including injunctive relief, against Defendants as necessary to effectuate the Court’s judgment, or as the Court otherwise deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted this 31st day of October 2022.”

[JiuJitsu]

IANAL but doesn’t #1 effectively mean a judgement against the law and #2 mean an injunction from enforcing it?

[ngnrnlo]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

IANAL but doesn’t #1 effectively mean a judgement against the law and #2 mean an injunction from enforcing it?

No need to be a lawyer. Plain English.

#1 declares that defendants enforcement is unconstitutional (in fact they missed the verb “is” in the sentence before “… in violation”)
#2 enjoins defendant, associates, successors from enforcing

[JiuJitsu]

Ah, I see. Thanks. Would that effectively mean an end to the law if they can’t enforce it?

[ngnrnlo]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

Ah, I see. Thanks. Would that effectively mean an end to the law if they can’t enforce it?

They are only asking for enjoinment of the purchase prohibition (by the buyer). Bonta can turn around and prohibit the sale (by the FFL).

It’s just goofy; they need to submit an amended complaint.

[JiuJitsu]

Well then, how about we hope this one smacks down enforcement of it while Boland v. Bonta eventually beats the law down into the dirt completely.

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by ngnrnlo

They are only asking for enjoinment of the purchase prohibition (by the buyer). Bonta can turn around and prohibit the sale (by the FFL).

It’s just goofy; they need to submit an amended complaint.

A purchase transaction involves a buyer and a seller. The two parties are not severable in this transaction. If the purchase prohibition is removed, then by necessity the seller prohibition is removed, otherwise nothing much has been affected.

[SkyHawk]

If they declare the enforcement is unconstitutional then that is the win. They don't have to declare the law to be unconstitutional. #1 is the main plea for long term relief, #2 is the plea for immediate relief while the case proceeds. They can always amend the complaint if necessary.

[ngnrnlo]

Here is the additional paragraph included in Boland v bonta’s prayer for relief. How much extra would it have cost to include this paragraph in this case?

RELIEF
PlaintiffspraythattheCourt:
1. Enter a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. sections 2201 that California Penal Code sections 31910 through 32110, or any of these sections or any of their subsections, are unconstitutional on their face or, alternatively, to the extent these prohibitions apply to law-abiding adults seeking to acquire, use, or possess Off-Roster handguns that are in common use by Plaintiffs and the American public for lawful purposes, because such unlawfully infringes on the right of the People to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violates the plenary authority of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.

[Whiskey_Sauer]

Before you continue to embarrass yourself, please familiarize yourself with Ex parte Young, and then ask yourself how does a citizen sue a state in federal court over the constitutionality of a law?

[ngnrnlo]

Originally Posted by Whiskey_Sauer

Before you continue to embarrass yourself, please familiarize yourself with Ex parte Young, and then ask yourself how does a citizen sue a state in federal court over the constitutionality of a law?

Michel and associates and CRPA did it in Boland v bonta. May be you can explain how it is OK in that case but not here.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...858747.1.0.pdf

[ngnrnlo]

Originally Posted by Whiskey_Sauer

Before you continue to embarrass yourself, please familiarize yourself with Ex parte Young, and then ask yourself how does a citizen sue a state in federal court over the constitutionality of a law?

I looked up ex parte young. It says that if government officials attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law, the govt officials are not protected by sovereign immunity. If the law that they are trying to enforce is not found unconstitutional, ex parte young does not apply. So you cannot enjoin bonta unless the roster is found unconstitutional; and Rena’s complaint is not asking that the law be found unconstitutional.

But also, I looked at the basis for CRPA seeking to find the roster unconstitutional. CRPA claims 28 USC 2201 provides that basis. But I don’t see that in the language of 28 USC 2201:

28 USC 2201: (a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a proceeding under section 505 or 1146 of title 11, or in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class or kind of merchandise of a free trade area country (as defined in section 516A(f)(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930), as determined by the administering authority, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.
(b) For limitations on actions brought with respect to drug patents see section 505 or 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act.

(I looked up Section 505 and 1146 of title 11; they address completely irrelevant matters)

I’ve embarrassed myself enough for now.

[JiuJitsu]

I would venture to assume that the lawyers representing both of these two roster cases know far more about what they are doing and why their particular legal strategy is presumably appropriate to their cases than nearly any of us in here. Especially us non-lawyers.

So rather than argue over who is right (which is really just ego and a waste of time) I recommend just commenting on the case status instead of pretending to be Judge Judy.

[alowercaseq]

Originally Posted by ngnrnlo

But also, I looked at the basis for CRPA seeking to find the roster unconstitutional. CRPA claims 28 USC 2201 provides that basis. But I don’t see that in the language of 28 USC 2201:

[I] 28 USC 2201: (a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a proceeding under section 505 or 1146 of title 11, or in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class or kind of merchandise of a free trade area country (as defined in section 516A(f)(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930), as determined by the administering authority, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.

The grammar of the statute is pretty convoluted.

[JiuJitsu]

So what are the next steps in this case? Are we waiting for a particular response?

[abinsinia]

I think there's a month for Bonta to respond to the recent amended complaint Dec.1 it's due.

[f80vm]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I think there's a month for Bonta to respond to the recent amended complaint Dec.1 it's due.

I believe the response due date is 11/14 per this document: https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.66.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by f80vm

I believe the response due date is 11/14 per this document: https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.66.0.pdf

Ok, seems accurate.

[homelessdude]

Are both Renna and Boland still active? Do both of them have a State reply due on 11 / 14? Are they in the same court with the same judge or totally separate? So much going on it's hard to follow all of them. Thanks

[f80vm]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

Are both Renna and Boland still active? Do both of them have a State reply due on 11 / 14? Are they in the same court with the same judge or totally separate? So much going on it's hard to follow all of them. Thanks

Different judges. Both cases are essentially at slightly different steps. In both cases, my understanding is that the plaintiffs got carried away and focused on way too many other issues other than the roster (self manufacture, fee shifting etc) necessitating multiple amended complaints. In Renna, the 3rd amended complaint was filed recently and the state reply is due on the 14th. Boland seems stuck as the plaintiffs are yet to file their second amended complaint. I wish the lawyers in these cases were a bit more focused.

Another thing I don’t understand is why these cases were not filed in judge Benitez’s district (I guess they couldn’t find the right plaintiffs geographically?).

[homelessdude]

Will the state file their paperwork in a timely manner or will it show up at 11:59? I guess we will see today. It will be interesting to see if they found an argument or if it is more cut and paste from Duncan and Miller.

[f80vm]

State response filed: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1668471225

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by f80vm

State response filed: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1668471225

wow.
I guess thats a tactic.