Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 08-12-2022, 7:58 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice Thomas
Finally, we agree that Tennessee’s prohibition on carry-
ing “publicly or privately” any “belt or pocket pisto[l],” 1821
Tenn. Acts ch. 13, p. 15, was, on its face, uniquely severe,
see Heller, 554 U. S., at 629.
So in Bruen the Tennessee law was "uniquely severe" almost certainly means it was not constitutional.

California's law is also "uniquely severe".
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-12-2022, 12:08 PM
redhead's Avatar
redhead redhead is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 538
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 19K View Post
This is California, I now identify as an elderly disabled womanbirthing person. I am exempt from the roster.
I don’t have to identify as elderly. I’m pushing 70. I have arthritis in my hands.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-12-2022, 3:21 PM
GetMeCoffee's Avatar
GetMeCoffee GetMeCoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 226
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
So in Bruen the Tennessee law was "uniquely severe" almost certainly means it was not constitutional.

California's law is also "uniquely severe".
That was in reference to the total ban on any "belt or pocket pistol". The opinion then goes on to note that the TN Supreme Court read this language to permit the carry of larger military-style pistols. In doing so, they allowed the law to stand. I can see where LonogHornBob's concern comes from, but as Loiterer points out, the TN law addressed carry, whereas the roster addresses ownership transfer.
__________________

NRA Patriot Life Member, Benefactor
CRPA: Life Member

It's 2025. Mickey Mouse is in the public domain and Goofy has left the White House.

Last edited by GetMeCoffee; 08-12-2022 at 4:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-12-2022, 3:54 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 43,778
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee View Post
Loiterer points out, the TN law addressed carry, whereas the roster addresses ownership.
No, it doesn't.

Ownership is not addressed in PC 32000 and following. The Roster is a restriction on what a CA-licensed FFL may transfer to a non-exempt CA resident (as well as what a CA resident may import from out of state).

Non-prohibited CA residents may still own non-Roster handguns, and may transfer them to other non-prohibited CA residents.

In contrast, the enjoined PC 32310 criminalizes possession of large-capacity magazines - regardless of ownership.

Not that different as a result - many cannot own/possess if FFLs cannot transfer to you - but the technicalities are significant.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-12-2022, 4:32 PM
GetMeCoffee's Avatar
GetMeCoffee GetMeCoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 226
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
No, it doesn't.

Ownership is not addressed in PC 32000 and following. The Roster is a restriction on what a CA-licensed FFL may transfer to a non-exempt CA resident (as well as what a CA resident may import from out of state).

Non-prohibited CA residents may still own non-Roster handguns, and may transfer them to other non-prohibited CA residents.

In contrast, the enjoined PC 32310 criminalizes possession of large-capacity magazines - regardless of ownership.

Not that different as a result - many cannot own/possess if FFLs cannot transfer to you - but the technicalities are significant.
Whoops. Thanks for catching that - I edited my post.
__________________

NRA Patriot Life Member, Benefactor
CRPA: Life Member

It's 2025. Mickey Mouse is in the public domain and Goofy has left the White House.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-12-2022, 4:44 PM
Loiterer's Avatar
Loiterer Loiterer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: IE
Posts: 53
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I thought the average CA resident was prohibited, exceptions are non-prohibited.

Prohibited=can not posses non-prohibited can possess.

Can not buy from dealer?

I know it is all in the wording, just trying to figure this out.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-12-2022, 6:18 PM
BaronW's Avatar
BaronW BaronW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: La Palma, CA
Posts: 946
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loiterer View Post
I thought the average CA resident was prohibited, exceptions are non-prohibited.

Prohibited=can not posses non-prohibited can possess.

Can not buy from dealer?

I know it is all in the wording, just trying to figure this out.
"Prohibited person" generally refers to being prohibited from having guns or ammunition. As long as you are not a prohibited person that cannot possess firearms of any type (i.e., you are a felon), you may possess a "not CA certified safe" handgun. You just cannot buy new / import / manufacture them.

You have to be some kind of exempt person (i.e., a cop) to import or otherwise transfer a "not CA certified safe" handgun from an FFL.
__________________
I am not a lawyer, the above does not constitute legal advice.

WTB: Savage 99 SN#507612 (buying back grandpa's rifle)
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-12-2022, 6:36 PM
sirgrumps's Avatar
sirgrumps sirgrumps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,332
iTrader: 121 / 100%
Default

Would t there also be an equal protection angle?
Police and allowed to buy non-rostered unsafe handguns, but regular people aren’t.

That was one of the issues in. Ruben. Certain people got permits, others didn’t.
__________________
“the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right,” subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” ...."We know of no other constitutional rights that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."
—————————————————-
Justice Clarence Thomas
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-13-2022, 12:34 AM
rewireroy rewireroy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirgrumps View Post
Would t there also be an equal protection angle?
Police and allowed to buy non-rostered unsafe handguns, but regular people aren’t.

That was one of the issues in. Ruben. Certain people got permits, others didn’t.
Read the complaint, LEO exemption is brought up.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-13-2022, 8:32 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 3,928
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rewireroy View Post
Read the complaint, LEO exemption is brought up.
But that was primarily to counter the claim that off roster handguns are unsafe. With respect to equal protection claiming that LEOs and ordinary citizens are similarly situated is not going to fly.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-13-2022, 1:55 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 22,609
iTrader: 221 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loiterer View Post
If I read the statement from LonghornBob right, it says you can't carry, it doesn't say you can't own.
You read it wrong
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-13-2022, 3:59 PM
Loiterer's Avatar
Loiterer Loiterer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: IE
Posts: 53
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can see carry,

Tennessee Supreme Court in 1871 and the statute enacted shortly thereafter that banned the carry of all pistols, other than larger, military-style revolvers (e.g., Colt Army Model 1860, etc.), and indicated this passed constitutional muster because it did “not altogether prohibit the public carry of arms.”

I don't see own/possess.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-14-2022, 4:17 AM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loiterer View Post
I can see carry,

Tennessee Supreme Court in 1871 and the statute enacted shortly thereafter that banned the carry of all pistols, other than larger, military-style revolvers (e.g., Colt Army Model 1860, etc.), and indicated this passed constitutional muster because it did “not altogether prohibit the public carry of arms.”

I don't see own/possess.
Well, Tennessee and Arkansas banned the sale all pistols other than "army or navy pistols" in 1879 and 1881, respectively. The Tennessee statute was challenged and upheld in 1881.

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/01...and-tennessee/

Perhaps, these laws are too recent to be entitled to "historical analogue" status.

Note: As for the point that the California Attorney General is going to get ideas from a guy named Longhorn Bob on a gun forum, I seriously doubt it.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-14-2022, 7:47 AM
Loiterer's Avatar
Loiterer Loiterer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: IE
Posts: 53
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Longhorn Bob,

Thank you for the link, very helpful for basic outline of the case.

To look up Tennessee Supreme Court 1871 has a lot to sort through and I was looking at a single statement here. Didn't find it.

In my mind you have to posses something to carry it. It is like saying only Chevy can be driven on the street, not a Ford. (I don't have either of those) The statement does not say you cant own a Ford.

I did not intend for this to be a problem, just a simple statement that because you can't carry is different than you can't possess. The statement does not mention possession. Other parts of the case may but not the statement.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-14-2022, 10:16 AM
BajaJames83's Avatar
BajaJames83 BajaJames83 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North West SD county
Posts: 5,856
iTrader: 434 / 100%
Default

Why I support the CRPA and NRA another big case that they take on.
All the others will bitch moan and complain....
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-17-2022, 9:49 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There's some sort of 30 day extension added to the docket I assume for Bonta to respond.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...-robert-bonta/

Entry #11
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-17-2022, 1:04 PM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 203
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well of course Bonta gets another 30 days to respond. Because we need to have our rights taken away as long as possible. More extensions on top of extensions, please. So CA has more time to come up with ridiculous defenses to blatantly unconstitutional laws, all paid for by our tax dollars. Gotta love it.

Last edited by JiuJitsu; 08-17-2022 at 1:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-17-2022, 2:14 PM
Socal_Jack Socal_Jack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxnard_Montalvo View Post
But that 'free market' is in itself problematic in that to get a 'free market' [aka 49 ish state handgun] into california one has to purchase one from an 'exempt' [typically a leo of some type] owner which raises questions about that whole process.

Since several/many leo's have run into issues regarding this it might be an issue that should be brought up in conjunction with this lawsuit don't ya think, that the 'free market' in california isn't as free as the pro roster people would like everyone [especially the court] to think?
Except now, $650 guns now become $2200 guns or more on the informal private transfer market.

Imagine, in other states you can walk into a store and get a VP9, or P320 full size for $650.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-17-2022, 11:16 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 9,944
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loiterer View Post
Longhorn Bob,

Thank you for the link, very helpful for basic outline of the case.

To look up Tennessee Supreme Court 1871 has a lot to sort through and I was looking at a single statement here. Didn't find it.

In my mind you have to posses something to carry it. It is like saying only Chevy can be driven on the street, not a Ford. (I don't have either of those) The statement does not say you cant own a Ford.

I did not intend for this to be a problem, just a simple statement that because you can't carry is different than you can't possess. The statement does not mention possession. Other parts of the case may but not the statement.
Bonta, and every other anti 2A turd politico. Are grasping at straws, and irrelevant straws at that. 1871 was 80 yrs AFTER THE FOUNDING.

And the link that "LHB" posted in relation. Was written 6 MOS. PRIOR TO THE NYSRPA v BRUEN decision.

Justice Thomas was pretty specific, as to what time/era was acceptable examples of "THT".
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-18-2022, 4:08 AM
Oxnard_Montalvo's Avatar
Oxnard_Montalvo Oxnard_Montalvo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NorCal
Posts: 1,044
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socal_Jack View Post
Except now, $650 guns now become $2200 guns or more on the informal private transfer market.

Imagine, in other states you can walk into a store and get a VP9, or P320 full size for $650.
Yeah I've been to a bunch of out of state stores and gun shows and have seen the disparity between 'free' states and california's marketplace.

The direction I was more going in was the fact that california's convoluted laws are supporting straw buying by leo's which is distorting the normal interstate commerce in firearms.

This whole twisted system was [VERY] likely unconstitutional and even more so since the Bruen decision was released but isn't likely to get overturned anytime soon given the glacial pace of the court system...
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 08-18-2022, 7:15 AM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socal_Jack View Post
Except now, $650 guns now become $2200 guns or more on the informal private transfer market.

Imagine, in other states you can walk into a store and get a VP9, or P320 full size for $650.
The new Sig P365 Macro is going for the low, low price of $3,000 in California. But hurry, this discount won't last for long.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-18-2022, 11:41 AM
newbieLA newbieLA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 359
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post
The new Sig P365 Macro is going for the low, low price of $3,000 in California. But hurry, this discount won't last for long.
the irony that an off-roster "unsafe" handgun can be legally sold by exempt persons to non-exempt persons is lost on the courts
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-22-2022, 10:25 AM
SODTAOE SODTAOE is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nobody has mentioned the race or ethnicity based gun control laws that actually would serve as a precedent. (Edit: I'm including ethnoreligious groups as ethnicities)

While historical laws that prohibited the sale of guns overall (starting with the Vatican ban on selling firearms to non-Catholics) are a different manner, I imagine that there'd probably be exceptions for the lobbyists of the day.

I specifically remember a couple African American history anecdotes involving black people being limited to shotguns in some places.

But, if you need something earlier, there were other types of people to discriminate against before African Americans were legally people: Native Americans, Jewish people, Catholics, etc.

If there are plenty of state and local laws barring someone from owning land, voting, or holding public office, then odds are that there will be at least one relating to muskets. It probably doesn't need to be a federal law to pass the historical precedent test either, since we're talking about state rights.

I was hesitant to post about it cause I didn't think the left would want to turn to that as a Californian, but it turns out New York is willing to. They also found a historic law regarding Native Americans:

https://thereload.com/new-york-uses-...ions-in-court/

Also, does it need to be post-colonial law for states won via the Mexican American war? California's statehood began in the 19th century.

Last edited by SODTAOE; 08-22-2022 at 10:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-22-2022, 10:43 AM
johncage johncage is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 967
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SODTAOE View Post
Nobody has mentioned the race or ethnicity based gun control laws that actually would serve as a precedent. (Edit: I'm including ethnoreligious groups as ethnicities)

While historical laws that prohibited the sale of guns overall (starting with the Vatican ban on selling firearms to non-Catholics) are a different manner, I imagine that there'd probably be exceptions for the lobbyists of the day.

I specifically remember a couple African American history anecdotes involving black people being limited to shotguns in some places.

But, if you need something earlier, there were other types of people to discriminate against before African Americans were legally people: Native Americans, Jewish people, Catholics, etc.

If there are plenty of state and local laws barring someone from owning land, voting, or holding public office, then odds are that there will be at least one relating to muskets. It probably doesn't need to be a federal law to pass the historical precedent test either, since we're talking about state rights.

I was hesitant to post about it cause I didn't think the left would want to turn to that as a Californian, but it turns out New York is willing to. They also found a historic law regarding Native Americans:

https://thereload.com/new-york-uses-...ions-in-court/

Also, does it need to be post-colonial law for states won via the Mexican American war? California's statehood began in the 19th century.
none of those should matter, they are all relatively recent
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-22-2022, 10:50 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 444
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that defending a new law based on a history and tradition of old laws that are blatantly unconstitutional (under today's understanding) is a dubious approach and a really bad look.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-22-2022, 12:24 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,794
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
a really bad look.
The 9th doesn't care about bad looks. Neither does Bonta. They're both allowed to be as racist as they want.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-22-2022, 1:03 PM
SODTAOE SODTAOE is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johncage View Post
none of those should matter, they are all relatively recent
Only #4 is relatively recent.

Quote:
Overall, New York’s filing seeks to convince the Court the Second Amendment’s history provides a wide birth for gun regulations, even those based solely on the description of state officials. The state argues there is precedent for all sorts of restrictions to be found in the historical record.

“1) colonial laws providing for disarmament of dissident or hostile groups,” the state filing said. “2) Revolutionary laws individually disarming persons’ disaffected to the cause of America,’ 3) militia mustering statutes providing for disarmament if a person was deemed unfit at inspection, and 4) Reconstruction-era and later licensing requirements like New York City’s that involved an individualized assessment of dangerousness – is ‘relevantly similar’ to the good moral character assessment under the CCIA, and therefore satisfies the Bruen standard.”
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-23-2022, 1:13 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,472
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SODTAOE View Post
Only #4 is relatively recent.
Gee this sounds identical to the arguments raised in favor of the restrictions in the NY case--all of which were addressed quite well in the reply by Plaintiffs Antonyuk et al..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-23-2022, 9:53 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 776
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Hopefully one of these courts points out that an assessment of dangerousness is still OK under Bruen - as long as it is objective. For example, convictions for specific violent crimes. But the due process portion of the 14th Amendment will not allow variations by jurisdiction for government officials "assessing" things like character references or social-media accounts.

If someone is making terrorist threats on social media, they can prosecute them, and once convicted, the conviction would count against getting a permit.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-24-2022, 12:05 PM
morthrane morthrane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 934
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SODTAOE View Post
Also, does it need to be post-colonial law for states won via the Mexican American war? California's statehood began in the 19th century.
The Racist Origins of California's Concealed Weapon Permit Law
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 08-24-2022, 12:08 PM
Spartan5305 Spartan5305 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 91
iTrader: 7 / 82%
Default

Guys do you really think the elites will ever allow us to have the ability to take the power from them? No! So guns are a losing issue. We live in a fat and happy society which is more than willing to give up personal responsibility to protect themselves and allow the government to care for them like a small child
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-15-2022, 12:22 PM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 203
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This case was just reassigned to a new judge. The judge appears to be conservative-leaning and appointed by Bush.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...-robert-bonta/
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-16-2022, 12:54 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Sep 16, 2022 Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less)
Some sort of extension to answer filed today.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.15.0.pdf

It says 3 days extension to and including Sept. 23

Last edited by abinsinia; 09-16-2022 at 1:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-22-2022, 2:12 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Tomorrow is the deadline to respond. I'm not sure if we will see the respond tomorrow , or Monday.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-22-2022, 4:07 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Joint STIPULATION for Order to Dismiss Second Claim for Relief with Prejudice filed by Plaintiffs Lance Boland, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Reno May, Mario Santellan, Jerome Schammel.(Dale, Joshua) (Entered: 09/22/2022)
It looks like they got them to give up on the claim for attorneys fee's if Boland loses one count. (AB1621 I think).

Something else, commerce clause related relief.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.16.0.pdf

Last edited by abinsinia; 09-22-2022 at 4:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-22-2022, 6:49 PM
Luciansulla Luciansulla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 174
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

No, looks like both. Plaintiffs agreed to drop the commerce clause part of the suit, and Bonta agreed not to ask for the AB 1621 fees.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-23-2022, 1:52 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Two new entries on the docket,

Quote:
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant Robert Bonta amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, 1, filed by Plaintiffs Jerome Schammel, Lance Boland, Reno May, Mario Santellan, California Rifle & Pistol Association(Michel, Carl) (Entered: 09/23/2022)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.17.0.pdf

Quote:
NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Document RE: Stipulation for Order 16 . The following error(s) was/were found: Proposed document was not submitted or was not submitted as a separate attachment. Other error(s) with document(s): No [Prop] Order. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 09/23/2022)
They don't look like the reponse filing.

Last edited by abinsinia; 09-23-2022 at 3:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-23-2022, 7:54 PM
Old WEST RANCH Old WEST RANCH is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: Tehachapi Mountains
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Some good news on making your own guns in Delaware today.
See on youtube
"The Four Boxes Diner" just reported "HUGE 2A WIN: Federal Court Finds We have RIGHT TO MAKE OUR OWN GUNS gutting DE "Ghost Gun" Laws" A must see, Attorney Mark Smith breaks it down and it is very positive.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-23-2022, 9:41 PM
Texas Boy's Avatar
Texas Boy Texas Boy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 801
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old WEST RANCH View Post
Some good news on making your own guns in Delaware today.
See on youtube
"The Four Boxes Diner" just reported "HUGE 2A WIN: Federal Court Finds We have RIGHT TO MAKE OUR OWN GUNS gutting DE "Ghost Gun" Laws" A must see, Attorney Mark Smith breaks it down and it is very positive.
This probably deserves its own thread - not roster related, but yes, a huge win in a different circuit. I especially like the judge said the state could not require serial numbers or registration of homemade firearms. Let's hope it is upheld by SCOUTS or we can get a similar win here.

Now back to the roster......
__________________
...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-23-2022, 10:42 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 43,778
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old WEST RANCH View Post
Some good news on making your own guns in Delaware today.
See on youtube
"The Four Boxes Diner" just reported "HUGE 2A WIN: Federal Court Finds We have RIGHT TO MAKE OUR OWN GUNS gutting DE "Ghost Gun" Laws" A must see, Attorney Mark Smith breaks it down and it is very positive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Boy View Post
This probably deserves its own thread - not roster related, but yes, a huge win in a different circuit. I especially like the judge said the state could not require serial numbers or registration of homemade firearms. Let's hope it is upheld by SCOUTS or we can get a similar win here.

Now back to the roster......
It does have its own thread - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...post&t=1820652

Please recall: this forum is for primarily CALIFORNIA cases. Cases that initiate in some other state belong in the next forum down, "National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion "

If our California case litigators want to include arguments/results from out of state cases, that will be correctly discussed in this forum at that time.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:59 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy