2022 08 01 Boland V Bonta - Handgun Roster Lawsuit

[mej16489]

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.

No, they are buying and issuing guns which are not on the not-unsafe handgun list. Stupid california knew better then to declare guns on not on the list as unsafe - they'd have been sued for defamation, liable, whatever by the manufacturers.

[newbieLA]

Originally Posted by mej16489

No, they are buying and issuing guns which are not on the not-unsafe handgun list. Stupid california knew better then to declare guns on not on the list as unsafe - they'd have been sued for defamation, liable, whatever by the manufacturers.

I wasn't aware that there was a different "unsafe list", is that in fact true? I thought it was simply the "safe handgun roster" which implied those guns not on the roster were unsafe.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by newbieLA

I wasn't aware that there was a different "unsafe list", is that in fact true? I thought it was simply the "safe handgun roster" which implied those guns not on the roster were unsafe.

The "other list" is whatever gun they want. there is no other list except complete freedom.

[Mongo68]

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.

Off topic, but it would be interesting if any criminal defense/ civil lawyer has used that angle in an officer shooting case? OIS was wrong because the issued gun was unsafe...

[DolphinFan]

I’d you read the states brief ALL of the precincts they list have yet to be GVR’d and all rely on levels of scrutiny, therefore unconstitutional.
They even admit and rely on the levels of scrutiny specifically GRV’d by the Supreme Court.

There is no law between 1790-1869 that supports a safe handgun list. Between 1790-1869 you could possess and carry any handgun you could afford.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

I’d you read the states brief ALL of the precincts they list have yet to be GVR’d and all rely on levels of scrutiny, therefore unconstitutional.
They even admit and rely on the levels of scrutiny specifically GRV’d by the Supreme Court.

There is no law between 1790-1869 that supports a safe handgun list. Between 1790-1869 you could possess and carry any handgun you could afford.

Likewise you could build (or have a smith build for you) any arm you wanted based on YOUR choices and needs.

[Paladin]

Armed Scholar update on Boland and Renna. Renna is essentially getting a do over so Boland is the one to watch for now. Next move is Jan 23.

https://youtu.be/JEciXtap61s

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Armed Scholar update on Boland and Renna. Renna is essentially getting a do over so Boland is the one to watch for now. Next move is Jan 23.

https://youtu.be/JEciXtap61s

Sorry - but there is no more annoying, bloviating, take forever to make a simple point person out there but that Dude. Cannot tolerate.

[gumby]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Sorry - but there is no more annoying, bloviating, take forever to make a simple point person out there but that Dude. Cannot tolerate.

Agreed!!!

[LoadedM333]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Armed Scholar update on Boland and Renna. Renna is essentially getting a do over so Boland is the one to watch for now. Next move is Jan 23.

How long will this take, is it starting from scratch again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by LoadedM333

How long will this take, is it starting from scratch again?

This thread is for the Boland case, which is NOT starting from scratch again.

Renna is a different case which may be starting from scratch again..

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

This thread is for the Boland case, which is NOT starting from scratch again.

Renna is a different case which may be starting from scratch again..

Here’s my update to Renna:
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...3#post27484433

[abinsinia]

REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Enforcement of the UHA statutes California Penal Code sections 31900 through 32110 23 filed by Plaintiffs Lance Boland, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Reno May, Mario Santellan, Jerome Schammel. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Holley, # 2 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence in Support of Preliminary Injunction)(Michel, Carl) (Entered: 12/12/2022)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.34.0.pdf

[JiuJitsu]

Good response brief. Let’s hope the judge finds their arguments convincing and issues a preliminary injunction.

[Paladin]

Who’s the judge in this case? Benitez?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Who’s the judge in this case? Benitez?

Honorable Cormac J. Carney

Bush nominated.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Honorable Cormac J. Carney

Bush nominated.

Sounds good.

HW or W?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Sounds good.

HW or W?

The younger one, W i think.

[Drivedabizness]

IANAL - but the whole "we're only contesting 3 parts" is horsesh*t.

Read Heller. Then read it again. What protects classes of/and individual arms is the fact that law abiding PEOPLE CHOOSE THEM FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES like, but certainly NOT limited to, self defense.

California's unique and ever more unconstitutional habit of denying rights of those not favored and bestowing "rights" (read special privileges) on those who ARE favored violates the core right to a Republican form of government (as well as numerous other plain text guarantees).

Perhaps we should have the intellectual integrity (like Ghandi and Mandela) to ask for the entire pie and not just the practical crumbs. HINT - these people don't give a whip about the law. Perhaps we should also remind them that we WILL vindicate our rights - the only question is whether we do so in the Courts, or under Natural law. It's been done before.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

The younger one, W i think.

More likely to be better.

[JiuJitsu]

Can anyone explain to a non-lawyer like myself why this case was not filed in San Diego so Judge Benitez could potentially get it? Just curious.

[fnlrun]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Sorry - but there is no more annoying, bloviating, take forever to make a simple point person out there but that Dude. Cannot tolerate.

I can't watch his videos either. Get to the point and move on. Plus he talks so damn fast.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

Can anyone explain to a non-lawyer like myself why this case was not filed in San Diego so Judge Benitez could potentially get it? Just curious.

I don't understand this either. As I've said before, as a layman, it is increasingly obvious that the case specifics are mostly irrelevant, the cleverness of the plaintiff is a requirement (they cannot make any mistakes), the cleverness of the defendant is irrelevant (the State could be represented by a pile of llama dung and a favorable court will overlook or even fix their defects for them), and the only real determining factor is.. drumroll... the judge.

To that extent, forum shopping seems to be the only real, meaningful strategy to put front and center.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

I don't understand this either. As I've said before, as a layman, it is increasingly obvious that the case specifics are mostly irrelevant, the cleverness of the plaintiff is a requirement (they cannot make any mistakes), the cleverness of the defendant is irrelevant (the State could be represented by a pile of llama dung and a favorable court will overlook or even fix their defects for them), and the only real determining factor is.. drumroll... the judge.

To that extent, forum shopping seems to be the only real, meaningful strategy to put front and center.

In a word Venue. The best plaintiff or the plaintiff with the necessary financial backing might not be in the jurisdiction of the court with the best judge.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

In a word Venue. The best plaintiff or the plaintiff with the necessary financial backing might not be in the jurisdiction of the court with the best judge.

there should be no end of plaintiffs. I would imagine they could pick whatever venue they wanted.

[JiuJitsu]

Hell, they could’ve picked me. I’d walk the complaint on over to Judge Benitez myself.

[Ocdlaw]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Sorry - but there is no more annoying, bloviating, take forever to make a simple point person out there but that Dude. Cannot tolerate.

Proof that anyone can pass the Bar.

[abinsinia]

The judge set specific topics to discuss at the hearing on Jan. 23.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.35.0.pdf

-The nature and function of the statutorily required features for firearms at issue
in this action;

- How each statutory requirement at issue in this action implicates the plain text
of the Second Amendment, including but not limited to how each requirement
implicates an individual’s ability to keep and bear arms;

- Analogues from the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United
States that are relevantly similar to each requirement at issue in this action;

- The balance of equities, including but not limited to any public safety or other
public benefit or interest, for each statutory requirement at issue in this action;
and

- Any other topic that the parties deem relevant

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Plantiff Response Brief

The State correctly notes that Plaintiffs do not seek to strike down all of the UHA’s
requirements for admission to the roster. Plaintiffs seek to strike down the
microstamping, loaded chamber indicator (“LCI”), and magazine disconnect mechanism
(“MDM”) provisions that prevent up-to-date pistols from being available to Californians.
Striking those down immediately would have no impact on the UHA’s requirement that
pistols be submitted to a state approved laboratory for drop-safety testing.

If this PI is granted it just eliminates part of the roster, it would not be open season to buy what you want. It just means new roster entries could be added without LCI, MDM, or microstamping.

[DolphinFan]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

The judge set specific topics to discuss at the hearing on Jan. 23.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58747.35.0.pdf

Balance of Equities sounds like levels of Scrutiny.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Balance of Equities sounds like levels of Scrutiny.

Yeah, that's concerning .. That's part of the PI process i think.

[rrr70]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

If this PI is granted it just eliminates part of the roster, it would not be open season to buy what you want. It just means new roster entries could be added without LCI, MDM, or microstamping.

If, and it’s a big IF, manufacturers want to pay ransom to the state.

[Dirk Tungsten]

Originally Posted by rrr70

If, and it’s a big IF, manufacturers want to pay ransom to the state.

It also doesn't help those of us who want collectible, no longer in production, non-C&R handguns for our collection

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

If this PI is granted it just eliminates part of the roster, it would not be open season to buy what you want. It just means new roster entries could be added without LCI, MDM, or microstamping.

So tell me why this isn't helping to prop up something that at it's core is so obviously unconstitutional, especially after the 'NYSRPA v Bruen' ruling?

[homelessdude]

So far a court hasn't agreed with you that it is unconstitutional. I agree with you but my opinion isn't worth much. JMO

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Oxnard_Montalvo

So tell me why this isn't helping to prop up something that at it's core is so obviously unconstitutional, especially after the 'NYSRPA v Bruen' ruling?

I don't think it's propping it up, but I think they limited the PI to make it more likely to get it. I would rather they just went for the whole thing, but I don't know we'll see if they get this reduce PI or not.

[johnireland]

And the BS goes on and on and on and on. When will enough be enough? At some point in time citizens must change a government that is oppressive and/or corrupt.

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I don't think it's propping it up, but I think they limited the PI to make it more likely to get it. I would rather they just went for the whole thing, but I don't know we'll see if they get this reduce PI or not.

What else can you call something that will remove some bad policies but keep the main premise? Even if you [at a minimum] remove the microstamping requirement you still have something that is designed to eliminate virtually all choices in what you can buy until you have two choices, a 1911 or a colt single action which is CLEARLY unconstitutional especially post Bruen...

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Oxnard_Montalvo

What else can you call something that will remove some bad policies but keep the main premise? Even if you [at a minimum] remove the microstamping requirement you still have something that is designed to eliminate virtually all choices in what you can buy until you have two choices, a 1911 or a colt single action which is CLEARLY unconstitutional especially post Bruen...

Yeah, I suppose they should have went for the whole thing. I was hoping the Renna case wlil do that.

[JiuJitsu]

I’d have to read their amended complaint again but I thought that it went after the entire roster. I thought it was just this preliminary injunction that was only going after these specific parts of the UHA to maximize the likelihood of getting it approved. Of course I may be wrong.

And yea, I’d rather see the whole UHA trashed as the blatant infringement that it truly is.