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

[JiuJitsu]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Renna just filed this motion for preliminary injunction. Lets hope they did the whole thing and not what Boland did limiting it.

It was a great read and yes they went after the whole thing. As they should, IMO. I think their arguments are solid.

Let's hope one of these two roster challenges seeking preliminary injunctions gets it.

[abinsinia]

The judge in Renna is a George W. Bush judge.

[homelessdude]

Looks to me that they are asking for the whole roster system to be trashed. Is this judge hostile toward the second or is it possible. Sounds like they are really pushing for a decision so they can move up the food chain.

[JiuJitsu]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

Looks to me that they are asking for the whole roster system to be trashed. Is this judge hostile toward the second or is it possible. Sounds like they are really pushing for a decision so they can move up the food chain.

He seems pro-2A based on his previous order on the 3-1 removal provisions of the handgun roster. Sabraw found the gun owners and industry groups sufficiently pleaded the UHA substantially impacts their Second Amendment rights since the roster rule “limits the ability of law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms, which is critical to ensuring the Second Amendment right to keep arms.”

“Because plaintiffs have alleged the number of handguns available for purchase on the roster has steadily declined and will continue to decline, plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrate the UHA burdens protected conduct by substantially infringing plaintiffs’ ability to acquire firearms for self-defense,” Sabraw wrote.

So I think we have a judge that follows the constitution. Hopefully. We shall see.

[ritter]

That would be neat. Imagine it being that simple.

[JiuJitsu]

Imagine it being that simple since the Heller decision. Would’ve been neat.

[ritter]

Exactly.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Renna just filed this motion for preliminary injunction. Lets hope they did the whole thing and not what Boland did limiting it.

Originally Posted by abinsinia

The judge in Renna is a George W. Bush judge.

May we have favorable winds, for a change….

[abinsinia]

A little more of a deep dive on the judge.

[Dvrjon]

I don’t follow the guy on the video, but to slam the male judge as a chick based on his name is stupid. Moreover, the sexual identity of the judge is irrelevant. Yay! He applauds himself for correcting the incompetent error. WTF? “I’d rather be corrected than be wrong.”. You can only be corrected if you’re wrong.

Also, if the PI or any injunction on the Roster is approved, the state will include a request that the injunction be stayed when issued. At the same time, the state will file with CA9 for a stay if the trial judge doesn’t support it. (See Benitez and LCMs). Getting a PI isn’t the hot **** issue this guy thinks it is.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

I don’t follow the guy on the video, but to slam the male judge as a chick based on his name is stupid. Moreover, the sexual identity of the judge is irrelevant. Yay! He applauds himself for correcting the incompetent error. WTF? “I’d rather be corrected than be wrong.”. You can only be corrected if you’re wrong.

Also, if the PI or any injunction on the Roster is approved, the state will include a request that the injunction be stayed when issued. At the same time, the state will file with CA9 for a stay if the trial judge doesn’t support it. (See Benitez and LCMs). Getting a PI isn’t the hot **** issue this guy thinks it is.

The same judge ruled in another case that the 1 for 3 of the roster was not constitutional. At least that's the claim in the video.

[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

The same judge ruled in another case that the 1 for 3 of the roster was not constitutional. At least that's the claim in the video.

Chief Judge Sabraw ruled in "another" case, or that was something he already wrote in this case? Say his April 23, 2021 decision, which dismissed some portions of the case (because Pena was binding law at the time), and allowed some to remain? In that decision, he wrote things like, "Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the UHA, particularly AB 2847’s three-to-one provision, violates their Second Amendment rights and thus state a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. "

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

The same judge ruled in another case that the 1 for 3 of the roster was not constitutional. At least that's the claim in the video.

And the claim in the previous video was that Sabraw was female.

The video clown says Sabraw has ruled the Roster as being unconstitutional. That isn’t what happened. Sabraw was looking at the “3 for 1” roster reduction and indicating that that limited provision might be unconstitutional, if plaintiffs assertions were accepted as fact. His slides even show that.

There’s still an argument to be made and the video dude doesn’t get it.

Regardless, an injunction will be immediately stayed due to the inability to “unring the bell.”

[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ]

I think some people on Youtube fail to appreciate the difference between what is written in a Second Amendment Foundation press release, and what is actually written by the judge in a decision. Some people may also fail to appreciate the difference between what is required to keep a case alive against a motion to dismiss and what is required for an injunction.

[Daithi]

I'm no lawyer, and I'm smart enough to know that I don't know squat in regards to the chances that a preliminary injunction will be issued that will stop enforcement of the CA Handgun Roster. I don't know if this is a possibility on Feb. 10th, or of it immediately gets stayed by the 9th, or if there is a freedom week, or whatever. Nevertheless, I'm hoping that on Feb. 10th a preliminary injunction is issued. Even if it gets stayed by the 9th then make them do so.

SCOTUS is requiring NY to explain their position on the 3rd in the stay against enforcing their new law. SCOTUS rarely does this in a case that is still pending. If SCOTUS didn't intend to drop this stay they likely wouldn't have bothered taking the case. Maybe Thomas and a few other judges are getting ticked off with courts and legislatures ignoring their rulings. So maybe this CA will follow their Bruen ruling, and the 9th will either get in line, or let them openly defy SCOTUS and we'll see how that goes.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Chief Judge Sabraw ruled in "another" case, or that was something he already wrote in this case? Say his April 23, 2021 decision, which dismissed some portions of the case (because Pena was binding law at the time), and allowed some to remain? In that decision, he wrote things like, "Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the UHA, particularly AB 2847’s three-to-one provision, violates their Second Amendment rights and thus state a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. "

The press release does name Renna , so it was this case.

[chris]

Originally Posted by Daithi

SCOTUS is requiring NY to explain their position on the 3rd in the stay against enforcing their new law. SCOTUS rarely does this in a case that is still pending. If SCOTUS didn't intend to drop this stay they likely wouldn't have bothered taking the case. Maybe Thomas and a few other judges are getting ticked off with courts and legislatures ignoring their rulings. So maybe this CA will follow their Bruen ruling, and the 9th will either get in line, or let them openly defy SCOTUS and we'll see how that goes.

This would be nice for SCOTUS to slap the states for doing so.

My question may be self answering. If SCOTUS slaps NY for it will that have national implications?

[Mute]

Originally Posted by chris

This would be nice for SCOTUS to slap the states for doing so.

My question may be self answering. If SCOTUS slaps NY for it will that have national implications?

My guess would be that if NY does get slapped by SCOTUS, any other circuits that stays pro-2A rulings will also get emergency challenges from plaintiffs sent straight to SCOTUS as well in hope of getting similar treatment.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by chris

This would be nice for SCOTUS to slap the states for doing so.

My question may be self answering. If SCOTUS slaps NY for it will that have national implications?

https://youtu.be/dzsT35UBZ_w

[JiuJitsu]

This potentially has major ripple effects on the many pending 2A cases in CA, some of which were directly GVR’d by SCOTUS themselves and being fought tooth and nail. If CA and other anti-2A states watch SCOTUS slap down ridiculous stays on injunctions for blatantly unconstitutional 2A laws then they will see that the highest court in the land means business. This is the only way they will be forced to respect the highest court, the recent Bruen decision, and 2A civil rights.

It will take time but this type of help by SCOTUS is needed right now to hammer home the point. Without some active intervention to remind these people of our civil rights we will just keep seeing more and more middle fingers from these states. This action is timely to do just that.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

https://youtu.be/dzsT35UBZ_w

This is the wrong thread. It should be posted in Antonyuk not Renna.

[johncage]

just a psa, everyone needs to list their off roster right now in the handgun sales section, because soon there will be a massive import of out of state handguns into california to capitalize on the end of the roster. all orders made during the time the roster was ended will be fulfilled.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

This is the wrong thread. It should be posted in Antonyuk not Renna.

May I suggest you get a better understanding of what that means?

It is 100% about Renna. What it means is Justice Sotomayor has challenged the 2nd circuit in a gun case.

This is the exact thing we want from the SCOTUS. They are saying, they’re done with 2A shenanigans in the circuit courts.

The Ninth is being put on notice with all 2A cases that Text/history is in fact what’s to be used in 2A cases.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by johncage

just a psa, everyone needs to list their off roster right now in the handgun sales section, because soon there will be a massive import of out of state handguns into california to capitalize on the end of the roster. all orders made during the time the roster was ended will be fulfilled.

Do you think that the DROS system will allow FFL's to transfer off roster to normal people ?

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Do you think that the DROS system will allow FFL's to transfer off roster to normal people ?

If it became legal to do so, we would just choose “exempt handgun”

[559nFree]

Originally Posted by taperxz

If it became legal to do so, we would just choose “exempt handgun”

I seriously hope this will work!! You know they would drag *** adjusting the current DROS system.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by 559nFree

I seriously hope this will work!! You know they would drag *** adjusting the current DROS system.

Nope. It’s just as easy and we do it everyday for exempt people and single action revolvers

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by taperxz

May I suggest you get a better understanding of what that means?

It is 100% about Renna. What it means is Justice Sotomayor has challenged the 2nd circuit in a gun case.

This is the exact thing we want from the SCOTUS. They are saying, they’re done with 2A shenanigans in the circuit courts.

The Ninth is being put on notice with all 2A cases that Text/history is in fact what’s to be used in 2A cases.

You can suggest all you want but the 2nd is not the 9th and this is not NY. This belongs in the Antonyuk thread.

This is why we can't have nice things and threads get all mucked up.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

You can suggest all you want but the 2nd is not the 9th and this is not NY. This belongs in the Antonyuk thread.

This is why we can't have nice things and threads get all mucked up.

If you think a SCOTUS intervention into a 2A carry case doesn’t affect the 9th circuit 2A decisions, you should really think twice before posting and being taken seriously here.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Renna just filed this motion for preliminary injunction. Lets hope they did the whole thing and not what Boland did limiting it.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.71.1.pdf

Anyone have a link to Renna’s docket?

What’s the ETA on the PI?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Anyone have a link to Renna’s docket?

What’s the ETA on the PI?

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

[abinsinia]

In the PI they requested a hearing on Feb. 10th.

[JiuJitsu]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Anyone have a link to Renna’s docket?

What’s the ETA on the PI?

I think the plaintiff requested a hearing for the Preliminary Injunction on Feb 10th, according the the document filed. Not sure if that date is happening or what.

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

Man, with all these cases moving forward post-Bruen…I think we’re all going to need a lot more popcorn!

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

I think the plaintiff requested a hearing for the Preliminary Injunction on Feb 10th, according the the document filed. Not sure if that date is happening cor what.

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

Is this still on? Audio or video streaming? Link?

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Is this still on? Audio or video streaming?

While it's technically possible, it also requires the permission of every participant in the courtroom and that rarely seems to actually occur.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...treaming-pilot

[WithinReason]

Is anyone planning on being in the courtroom? I will buy your lunch!

[mrpetkin]

So far Feb 10th Calendar does not list this case: Dana M. Sabraw - Judge of the Southern District of California
https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/Judge-Info.aspx

[Jkiernan88]

Originally Posted by mrpetkin

So far Feb 10th Calendar does not list this case: Dana M. Sabraw - Judge of the Southern District of California
https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/Judge-Info.aspx

It's on there now for 1:30pm

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges...raw_021023.pdf

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Jkiernan88

It's on there now for 1:30pm

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges...raw_021023.pdf

So this is on the validity of the roster? Even though I am in Idaho where such nonsense does not apply, I hope it goes down in flames, as it should!

[abinsinia]

Has anyone decided to go to this hearing today ?

221 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

333 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

One of these two buildings. Their right across the street from each other.