2022 08 01 Boland V Bonta - Handgun Roster Lawsuit

[JiuJitsu]

I didn't see any response submitted from Bonta on this complaint. I thought I read that it was due yesterday (Sep 23) after two extensions.

Maybe poor CA DOJ is having a hard time responding to all these 2A lawsuits piling up because they're busy desperately trying to dig up non-existent history and tradition to defend their bad laws.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

I didn't see any response submitted from Bonta on this complaint. I thought I read that it was due yesterday (Sep 23) after two extensions.

Maybe poor CA DOJ is having a hard time responding to all these 2A lawsuits piling up because they're busy desperately trying to dig up non-existent history and tradition to defend their bad laws.

Um, no. The parties stipulated to the filing of a first amended complaint, but screwed up the filing of the stipulation. So the answer is not yet due. The State will get 30 days to respond AFTER the first amended complaint is officially filed.

[JiuJitsu]

Interesting. So that means the state now gets effectively 3 months to respond to the initial complaint. Must be nice.

[JiuJitsu]

So, what’s the next step in this case? We have two different roster cases in process, which is cool. But damn I’m impatient to see some action on these!

[f80vm]

My understanding is that we’re waiting for plaintiffs to file their amended complaint.

[f80vm]

Motion for preliminary injunction filed this morning: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir..._Bonta_MPI.pdf

EDIT: Looks like there is a hearing scheduled for 12/19 at 1:30pm.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Document RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction 23 . The following error(s) was/were found: Proposed document was not submitted or was not submitted as a separate attachment. 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. (twdb) (Entered: 11/16/2022)

Filing problem I guess.

[f80vm]

What is with these 2 roster cases struggling to get off the ground with seemingly endless issues of their initial filings?

[Elgatodeacero]

The electronic filing rules vary widely from County to County, and Federal District to Federal District - it is very common to have filing issues requiring new or different items be filed, or filed in a different manner.

Please don’t treat this like a soap opera, and look for drama over anything at all. This is very unfair to the Plaintiff and their lawyers and is an unwelcome distraction from the merits of these cases.

If you think this stuff is easy or fast, go find a lawyer who will take your case, and file a civil rights lawsuit, and seek an injunction of a significant law. It is David vs. Goliath.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

The electronic filing rules vary widely from County to County, and Federal District to Federal District - it is very common to have filing issues requiring new or different items be filed, or filed in a different manner.

Please don’t treat this like a soap opera, and look for drama over anything at all. This is very unfair to the Plaintiff and their lawyers and is an unwelcome distraction from the merits of these cases.

If you think this stuff is easy or fast, go find a lawyer who will take your case, and file a civil rights lawsuit, and seek an injunction of a significant law. It is David vs. Goliath.

I think it's frustrating because even the state admitted in the Miller case that they can't ban handguns, but yet they ban %90 of handguns via the roster. The roster is prepped to be ended and the cases seem stalled or very slow.

I'm happy to see movement, but I hope for a swift end to the roster.

[Snoopy47]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I'm happy to see movement, but I hope for a swift end to the roster.

I think what we all want isn't going to happen. The roster will probably simply be redefined.

Magazine safeties and loaded chamber indicators with minimal font size will still probably be the remaining flavor.

We are not going to get to a point where say a Custom Wilson Combat can be ordered to the buyers specifics. Or say one can have a custom Race Gun built.

**************
Funny...............

Of all the things I would have quietly resigned to give up to remove the roster in it's entirety like never getting a CCW so I could have a Custom Race Gun of my design the libs got the worst part of their intended plan.

Yep, that's right I can't have that Gen5 Glock or that custom race gun in the privacy of my own home or for range use.

However, I can now walk around the streets with a CCW of any roster pistol (or off Roster for that matter).

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Snoopy47

I think what we all want isn't going to happen. The roster will probably simply be redefined.

Magazine safeties and loaded chamber indicators with minimal font size will still probably be the remaining flavor.

We are not going to get to a point where say a Custom Wilson Combat can be ordered to the buyers specifics. Or say one can have a custom Race Gun built.

**************
Funny...............

Of all the things I would have quietly resigned to give up to remove the roster in it's entirety like never getting a CCW so I could have a Custom Race Gun of my design the libs got the worst part of their intended plan.

Yep, that's right I can't have that Gen5 Glock or that custom race gun in the privacy of my own home or for range use.

However, I can now walk around the streets with a CCW of any roster pistol (or off Roster for that matter).

No need to give up a CCW, all it takes is giving up that CA DL for one from Idaho and then you can walk around with a fully featured AR with a 30 rnd mag, and it need not be concealed. The only handgun that I ever had with a mag disconnect was a Sig P226. I switched out the locking block to get rid of that nuisance. As for Race guns and Gen5s, what ever you can afford.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE OF LODGING filed re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Enforcement of the UHA statutes California Penal Code sections 31900 through 32110 23 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Michel, Carl) (Entered: 11/17/2022)

Not a correction.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Not a correction.

Of all the current 2A cases, I am most looking forward to the CA9 response (to the inevitable appeal) on this one. It pits the CA9's typical precious and preserved 1A right to petition against the 2A state deference on restriction. There is absolutely a chilling (freezing, even) effect on the right to petition by the state transferring all financial liability to the petitioner. Oh, how will the poor CA9 folk juggle that? Might be the first case since Heller they actually find for the plaintiff. Not holding my breath.

[abinsinia]

STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response and Reply to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendant Robert Bonta. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proof of Service)(Meyerhoff, Robert) (Entered: 11/17/2022)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.27.0.pdf

Delays delays delays.

[abinsinia]

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Cormac J. Carney: ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND CONTINUING HEARING DATE 27 . Deadline for Defendant to respond to the Motion to December 5, 2022, and to continue the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of the Motion to December 12, 2022. The Court further ORDERS that the hearing on the Motion be continued to January 23, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. ( Motion hearing continued to 1/23/2023 at 09:00 AM before Judge Cormac J. Carney.) (twdb) (Entered: 11/18/2022)

Extended to Dec. 5.

[iMigraine]

Now Extended to January 23, 2023 @ 9:30am

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.28.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

Joint status report added to the docket.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.29.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

Defendant requests that the deadline for initial disclosure be extended to January 9, 2023, as lead counsel for Defendant began taking parental leave on November 29, 2022, the case will be transitioned to another attorney, and Defendant is currently briefing its response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

They want to delay more it seems. Something called "Initial Disclosure" which I don't know what it is.

[Drivedabizness]

Look for Bonta's legal team to continue an inordinate string of "sick, lame, lazy, going trans and we need to change counsel" delay tactics.

[JiuJitsu]

It really is highly irritating watching Bonta and CA DOJ trying to delay and slow roll all these 2A cases in every possible way. Yet when there is a need to slap more gun restrictions on us or defend some favorite legal issue they work with lightning speed.

[WWDHD?]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

It really is highly irritating watching Bonta and CA DOJ trying to delay and slow roll all these 2A cases in every possible way. Yet when there is a need to slap more gun restrictions on us or defend some favorite legal issue they work with lightning speed.

Not only do they know how to play the game- they are "The Game".

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

They want to delay more it seems. Something called "Initial Disclosure" which I don't know what it is.

The initial disclosure is a mandatory disclosure of the evidence and witnesses (other than experts) that the party believes is relevant to the case or is likely to be sought by the other side through discovery. It is supposed to reduce the expense of written discovery. Since discovery is a game that lawyers play to see how little information each can produce to their opponent and get away with. I suspect that the initial discovery, although enforceable through court orders and sanctions, isn't entirely helpful.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by TruOil

The initial disclosure is a mandatory disclosure of the evidence and witnesses (other than experts) that the party believes is relevant to the case or is likely to be sought by the other side through discovery. It is supposed to reduce the expense of written discovery. Since discovery is a game that lawyers play to see how little information each can produce to their opponent and get away with. I suspect that the initial discovery, although enforceable through court orders and sanctions, isn't entirely helpful.

In the report they had dueling schedules. I think "initial disclosure" was the next dated item, so they requested a delay on that. Here's the schedule from defendant,

Exchange of Initial Disclosures: January 9, 2022
Plaintiffs’ expert disclosure deadline: May 10, 2023
Defendant’s expert disclosure deadline: May 24, 2023
Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline: June 27, 2023
Fact discovery deadline: August 3, 2023
Expert discovery deadline: October 9, 2023
Dispositive motion deadline: December 18, 2023
Pretrial conference: At the court’s discretion
Trial: At the court’s discretion

So I think bottom line, they want a months delay for whatever reason.

[bwiese]

Remember that the UHA violates Fed Magnusson-Moss warranty behaviors.

If....
- CA dude buys Rostered new handgun in CA;
- Gun comes with decent warranty for some period;
- Gun falls off Roster due to mfg change or corporate change;
- handgun frame cracks/breaks and is nonrepairable;
- new 'part' cannot be supplied to fix it (requires DROSing of a new S/N
gun frame which is off Roster)

No matter how the mfgr wants to handle it, the CA dude can't get a 'new'
replacement gun/frame.

[It is also very unclear how Fed serial# deletion/recreation on ATF mfg books
could work with CA law, and most "Reman" receivers have a "-R" after the replacement serial# anyway.]

DOJ also, humorously, bans mfg changes and forces mfgrs to swear Rostered guns that no changes to parts source, origin, machining etc. occur [outside sights/grips etc.] But they regularly approve CA gunshop inventory reselling used Rostered handguns (on a non-consignment, non-PPT base) that may have had gunsmiths replace parts with generic parts or even parts supplied by mfgr that have come into replacement parts inventory after gun was Rostered.

[abinsinia]

OPPOSITION Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Enforcement of the UHA statutes California Penal Code sections 31900 through 32110 23 Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendant Robert Bonta. (Attachments: # 1 Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Salvador Gonzalez, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Attorney Gabrielle D Boutin added to party Robert Bonta(pty:dft))(Boutin, Gabrielle) (Entered: 12/05/2022)

The opposition brief is filed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.30.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

The UHA is not a handgun ban. Handguns, which include revolvers, non-semiautomatic pistols,
and semiautomatic pistols, have long been and continue to be widely
available for purchase and possession in California. Plaintiffs do not allege that
they cannot purchase a handgun suitable for self-defense, nor claim that they do not
already own such handguns. Rather, the UHA merely prohibits the manufacture or
commercial sale of handguns that do not meet certain safety requirements.

Not a promising start..

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Not a promising start..

Same old song. Yet there is still in effect the microstamp law that has effectively and massively reduced the available guns on the Roster and which has nothing to do with a safe product. And that same law prevents anything but revolvers from being added to the Roster, resulting in a slow decline and eventual elimination of semiautomatic pistols in the state. So what should be done is to show how many handguns are on the market, how many were on the roster before 2013, and how many are on the roster now. The conclusion that should be reached is that the Roster, although initially designed to assure safe products that won't blow up in your hand, to a process of protecting the stupid from themselves, and finally a blatant intent to eliminate all but revolvers from the California market as older guns stop being manufactured. California gun owners are denied choice, and denied access to the newest and presumably safest handguns on the market.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Same old song. Yet there is still in effect the microstamp law that has effectively and massively reduced the available guns on the Roster and which has nothing to do with a safe product. And that same law prevents anything but revolvers from being added to the Roster, resulting in a slow decline and eventual elimination of semiautomatic pistols in the state. So what should be done is to show how many handguns are on the market, how many were on the roster before 2013, and how many are on the roster now. The conclusion that should be reached is that the Roster, although initially designed to assure safe products that won't blow up in your hand, to a process of protecting the stupid from themselves, and finally a blatant intent to eliminate all but revolvers from the California market as older guns stop being manufactured. California gun owners are denied choice, and denied access to the newest and presumably safest handguns on the market.

The state seems to be relying on a mistake by CRPA .. The states is claiming that CRPA only argued in regards to loaded chamber indicator, magazine disconnect, and microstamping. They claim that even tho the case is against the whole roster, because the PI only argues to those three things, then the PI only covers those things.

[abinsinia]

The whole thing has a single paragraph of historic analysis.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Bonta's opposition to injunction filed 12-5-22 https://t.co/BC1juPZJwv

BONTA is FOS on his face.

The Unsafe Handgun Regime is Prima Facie a ban on guns.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Boland ?

Yes, darnit. Moved. And then deleted as dupe,

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Not a promising start..

I really wish someone would argue the roster bans guns necessary under the Americans with Disabilities Act. All those "EZ", .380 and .32 offerings are denied to those with less hand strength, etc. Same could be said of magazine size where disabled people who can't (for whatever reason) change magazines are at a clear disadvantage when limited to 10 rounds.

[Gravelman]

The right isn’t complete if it’s being infringed.

Def of Infringe: “to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)”

The idea that the handgun roster doesn’t limit or restrict my ability to keep and bear arms is ridiculous. The state is arguing that my ability to own only a “state approved” handguns isn’t a limitation or restriction, and that’s plain wrong.

What if California allowed me to vote, but my only option for a polling place was 100 miles away? That’s a plain infringement, similar to how the handgun roster works. I pay more to get obsolete equipment, or I pay a LOT more to get current equipment.

[DrewN]

How many issuing agencies in California? Gotta be 500 or so, yeah? Does a single one still issue a handgun that's on the roster? Off Roster handguns are clearly not unsafe.

[Ocdlaw]

Originally Posted by DrewN

How many issuing agencies in California? Gotta be 500 or so, yeah? Does a single one still issue a handgun that's on the roster? Off Roster handguns are clearly not unsafe.

This is the most powerful argument of all, in my opinion. If a gun is safe for purchase by an LEO for his own use off duty or for any other purpose, and he can even sell it, how can it be "unsafe"?

[abinsinia]

If a gun is safe to purchase across the vast majority of the united states, and it's not considered unsafe, that seems like a pretty powerful argument also.

[DrewN]

Originally Posted by Ocdlaw

This is the most powerful argument of all, in my opinion. If a gun is safe for purchase by an LEO for his own use off duty or for any other purpose, and he can even sell it, how can it be "unsafe"?

Right? So every agency in California is either knowingly buying and issuing unsafe handguns, or these handguns are not, in fact, unsafe. Even if we can't kill the roster maybe we can kill the LEO exemption.

[newbieLA]

Originally Posted by DrewN

Right? So every agency in California is either knowingly buying and issuing unsafe handguns, or these handguns are not, in fact, unsafe. Even if we can't kill the roster maybe we can kill the LEO exemption.

The LEO exemption is designed to get their union to donate millions to CA dems. They lose the LEO exemption they risk losing those millions in donations. This state is as corrupt as the Chicago mafia circa Al Capone.

[Ned Ryerson]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

BONTA is FOS on his face.

The Unsafe Handgun Regime is Prima Facie a ban on guns.

It definitely operates as a de facto ban. And that shouldn’t be too hard to prove.

Originally Posted by DrewN

How many issuing agencies in California? Gotta be 500 or so, yeah? Does a single one still issue a handgun that's on the roster? Off Roster handguns are clearly not unsafe.

This is a very powerful argument that all but shuts down the “off roster guns are unsafe” claim.