Defense Distributed v. Bonta

[command_liner]

Not too much coverage here at Calguns. New litigation as of Sept. 1, 2022, attacking AB1621 under obvious route due to the NYSRPA v. Bruen. SAF is running this one, and ZeroHedge.com is covering it as news.

There is no historical precedent for prohibiting people from making their own arms. So California does not have the power to pass a law to do so. It is hard to see where the state has any argument.

Am I missing other discussion of this case under another thread?

[Librarian]

Don't see it elsewhere. See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...-robert-bonta/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:22-cv-06200

Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...861550.1.0.pdf

83. Because Cal. Penal Code §§ 29180(f), 29185, 30400, 27530(a), and
18010(d) violate Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiffs’ members’ rights under the Second and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, they are invalid—both
facially and as applied against the Plaintiffs in this action. Plaintiffs are therefore
entitled to declaratory and permanent and preliminary injunctive relief against
Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active
concert or participation with them.

and other things.

[command_liner]

What I find very interesting about this case is the very strong parallels to colonial era licensing of the press, and similar licenses that persist until to day in the UK. You need a "TV license" in the UK, and it is an annual tax. This seems absurd to us in the US, but is normal in the UK. Also in the UK the printing presses needed to be licensed -- similar to post WWII typewriter licenses in East Germany. The concept/phrase we call "freedom of the press" was based on press license cost and availability. In the US it is prohibited by the Constitution for the government to limit the number of press licenses or charge fees. Similar arguments and lines of reason apply to "freedom of religion", where colonials were charged a tax to pay for the Anglican ministers, even though they escaped England on a pilgramage to practice their own religion. No glebe and manse tax, and nothing like the jizya. Freedom of religion in the original context is freedom from tax or license of religion in exact parallelism to freedom on the press. Thus they are in the same First Amendment.

The Second Amendment expands on this concept, declaring the *right* to arms. No taxation or license permitted. With the new historical context analysis required by NYSRPA v. Bruen, the state has no chance here.

[SmallShark]

the state has no chance? are you new to California?

the AW ban laws mentions nothing about shotguns, but the state included shotguns.
the bullet button stay on, but on the actual letter with all the AWs listed, it doesnt have anything about BB

there are laws and state regulations. your argument is about the laws

Originally Posted by command_liner

What I find very interesting about this case is the very strong parallels to colonial era licensing of the press, and similar licenses that persist until to day in the UK. You need a "TV license" in the UK, and it is an annual tax. This seems absurd to us in the US, but is normal in the UK. Also in the UK the printing presses needed to be licensed -- similar to post WWII typewriter licenses in East Germany. The concept/phrase we call "freedom of the press" was based on press license cost and availability. In the US it is prohibited by the Constitution for the government to limit the number of press licenses or charge fees. Similar arguments and lines of reason apply to "freedom of religion", where colonials were charged a tax to pay for the Anglican ministers, even though they escaped England on a pilgramage to practice their own religion. No glebe and manse tax, and nothing like the jizya. Freedom of religion in the original context is freedom from tax or license of religion in exact parallelism to freedom on the press. Thus they are in the same First Amendment.

The Second Amendment expands on this concept, declaring the *right* to arms. No taxation or license permitted. With the new historical context analysis required by NYSRPA v. Bruen, the state has no chance here.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Enjoining Enforcement of AB 1621 and SB1327 filed by Plaintiffs Defense Distributed, Second Amendment Foundation. Motion set for hearing on 10/24/2022 at 08:30 AM before Judge George H. Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Proposed Order) (Reynolds, Michael) (Entered: 09/23/2022)

New docket entry,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...61550.14.0.pdf

[alowercaseq]

What's the difference between a machine that builds guns with serial numbers and a machine that builds guns without serial numbers?

How can you keep something that doesn't exist? That you cannot create or maintain?

How can you oppose the TRO of a law that took effect instantly with the claim that both sides need more time to come up with arguments?

How can you challenge the constitutionality of a law that hasn't been passed yet?

Clown world

[abinsinia]

New entry in the docket. It looks like some sort of response from the state.

Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Opposition to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Enjoining Enforcement of AB 1621 and SB1327 14 filed by Defendants Robert Bonta, Luis Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of SCW in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction with Exhibits A (including Joint Stipulation) through B, # 2 Declaration of Salvador Gonzalez in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction with Exhibit A, # 3 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice)(Woods, Sean) (Entered: 10/03/2022)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...61550.15.0.pdf

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

New entry in the docket. It looks like some sort of response from the state.

Link?

[foxtrotuniformlima]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Link?

Go to Librarian's post ( #2 ) - click on the first link then scroll down

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by foxtrotuniformlima

Go to Librarian's post ( #2 ) - click on the first link then scroll down

Thanks!

[abinsinia]

I posted the link in post #7

[abinsinia]

This fee shifting deal seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

Originally Posted by Rob Bonta

Nevertheless, by way of
this filing, Defendants inform the Court and Plaintiff on the record that they will
not seek attorneys’ fees pursuant to SB 1327

Here the state releases claim to the fees in the filing to the court.

[Flight4]

The Plaintiff response to the State is here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.61.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Flight4

The Plaintiff response to the State is here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.61.0.pdf

This is Renna , it's a different case.

[abinsinia]

Reply to opposition from Bonta,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...61550.16.0.pdf

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Reply to opposition from Bonta,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...61550.16.0.pdf

I'm in awe of the sheer amount of authority cited in so few pages. I realize that SB 1327 is blatantly unconstitutional, so there is a lot of surface area to attack, but these guys methodically and thoroughly destroyed all of it.

So I expect the court to find in favor of the state and deny the PI...

Seriously, though, I think it's a really impressive brief, dense with authority.

[abinsinia]

Cf., e.g., Edwards v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 262 F.3d 856, 862 (9th Cir.
2001) (ban on wooden or plastic supports to signs carried during public assemblies
violated First Amendment; although content neutral, ban failed to leave open
alternative channels);

This section where they talk about a ban on wood supports for protest signs was pretty good.

[Fjold]

Judge George H. Wu was appointed by Bush

[flyer898]

In legal writing, I am a firm believer that less is more. A well written brief.

[command_liner]

Thanks for the brief reference at https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...61550.16.0.pdf

That is a pretty good beat-down of the state's position. But the state deserves that. The state is a combination of incompetent, intellectually lazy, in shock, in denial and unable to act. The state is completely dismissive of the idea that people have *rights*. There is so much inertia in the politics and legal positions of the state that no coherent response to the new landscape of Bruen is even possible.

We deserve to win on all points, and the state deserves to lose. Next up: go after each politician, sheriff and chief personally, and make them pay.

[abinsinia]

Tentative ruling on Preliminary Injunction.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...61550.19.0.pdf


tl;dr it was not granted.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Tentative ruling on Preliminary Injunction.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...61550.19.0.pdf


tl;dr it was not granted.

Ouch.

[abinsinia]

Looks like the judge claimed that the plain text has to cover the proposed behavior , and if it doesn't then it's not protect (i.e. threshold) ..

I don't think that's how Bruen works. I think it was just the plain text covers things which were presumptive lawful, but the historical analysis would have to be conducted regardless.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Looks like the judge claimed that the plain text has to cover the proposed behavior , and if it doesn't then it's not protect (i.e. threshold) ..

I don't think that's how Bruen works. I think it was just the plain text covers things which were presumptive lawful, but the historical analysis would have to be conducted regardless.

I agree. The judge clearly did not. I suppose we can expect similar from CA9.

I do think going after CNCs is a bit of a stretch currently. Need to get magazines, AWBs, rosters, permits, etc. nailed down first. Maybe then there will be sufficient case law for some of the more "nuanced" arguments. My personal view is, of course 2A protects building firearms. But there isn't much case law there yet. We haven't even made it past what Bruen requires of text.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by ritter

I agree. The judge clearly did not. I suppose we can expect similar from CA9.

I do think going after CNCs is a bit of a stretch currently. Need to get magazines, AWBs, rosters, permits, etc. nailed down first. Maybe then there will be sufficient case law for some of the more "nuanced" arguments. My personal view is, of course 2A protects building firearms. But there isn't much case law there yet. We haven't even made it past what Bruen requires of text.

What's concerning is that every argument from the state is that the behavior is outside the bound of the second amendment. This judge swallow that line. I think it's made easier for this case because it's CNC machines and not a direct gun ban.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

What's concerning is that every argument from the state is that the behavior is outside the bound of the second amendment. This judge swallow that line. I think it's made easier for this case because it's CNC machines and not a direct gun ban.

Agreed.

[M1A Rifleman]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Looks like the judge claimed that the plain text has to cover the proposed behavior , and if it doesn't then it's not protect (i.e. threshold) ..

I don't think that's how Bruen works. I think it was just the plain text covers things which were presumptive lawful, but the historical analysis would have to be conducted regardless.

A President Bush judge

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman

A President Bush judge

During the Bush administration the Dem. Senators had blue slip privilege to veto judges in their circuits. Feinstein no-doubt helped Bush select some awful judges.

[Drivedabizness]

I too, was appalled by the judges reasoning.

As Heller made abundantly clear, just because the "plain text" doesn't say something, doesn't mean it's not protected.

For example, the 2A extends to ALL Modern arms, not just those available at the Founding.

The judge seems to be perpetuating the "unless its specifically protected, we can regulate it any way we want". That's not what Heller said and that's not what Bruen said.

[abinsinia]

Nutty quote from the judge,

DD – and apparently certain other courts – would like to treat the Supreme Court’s
Bruen opinion as a “word salad,” choosing an ingredient from one side of the “plate” and
an entirely-separate ingredient from the other, until there is nothing left whatsoever other
than an entirely-bulletproof and unrestrained Second Amendment.10

I was thinking that isn't it the point that protected rights are "bulletproof and unrestrained " ?

[michigander]

Seems like willful ignorance on the part of the judge. What test is he using if not THT? I realize Vanderstok can’t be used as precedent at this time, but that judge seemed to have no issue tying his analysis to Bruen/Heller on what seems to me to be a very related case.

[nick]

Originally Posted by ritter

I agree. The judge clearly did not. I suppose we can expect similar from CA9.

I do think going after CNCs is a bit of a stretch currently. Need to get magazines, AWBs, rosters, permits, etc. nailed down first. Maybe then there will be sufficient case law for some of the more "nuanced" arguments. My personal view is, of course 2A protects building firearms. But there isn't much case law there yet. We haven't even made it past what Bruen requires of text.

In fact, building guns for personal use is supposedly more protected than manufacturing them for sale, as the commerce regulations don't apply, and the right cannot depend on a commercial product alone anyway. And without protecting building or manufacturing guns, the right to keep and bear them isn't protected.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by nick

In fact, building guns for personal use is supposedly more protected than manufacturing them for sale, as the commerce regulations don't apply, and the right cannot depend on a commercial product alone anyway. And without protecting building or manufacturing guns, the right to keep and bear them isn't protected.

Agree.

One can self-publish a book. One can build their own PC with which to write letters/email/***** post on the internet. One can produce their own media for art. One can make their own political demonstration signs. One can even build their own shrine in the backyard for private religious observance. Just a few examples of things protected by the 1A that I simply can't find anywhere in the text. The "it's not in the text" is a pretty disingenuous argument.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by ritter

The "it's not in the text" is a pretty disingenuous argument.

This is why I call the court system corrupt. Not just broken.

[abinsinia]

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS - ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge George H. Wu. The Court sets a Scheduling Conference for November 28, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel are reminded of their obligations to disclose information, confer on a discovery plan, and report to the Court, as required by F.R.C.P. 26 and the Local Rules of this Court. Trial counsel are ordered to be present. A Joint 26(f) Report shall be filed with the Court no later than November 21, 2022. See Local Rule 26-1. (aco) (Entered: 10/24/2022)

Scheduling order.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

What's concerning is that every argument from the state is that the behavior is outside the bound of the second amendment. This judge swallow that line. I think it's made easier for this case because it's CNC machines and not a direct gun ban.

I think that is not quite what the judge said, but I have been swamped and only have had time to give his ruling a cursory review. It isn't clear that he will eventually find self manufacture unprotected by the 2A. He may find it impliedy protected, but he has not found that the 2A's "plain text" protects the right to self manufacture.

Not that it is important, but I inherited one of those self built rifles; one which a backwoodsman thorugh together from parts. A barrel from here and a lock from there.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

What's concerning is that every argument from the state is that the behavior is outside the bound of the second amendment. This judge swallow that line. I think it's made easier for this case because it's CNC machines and not a direct gun ban.

If I may play the devil's advocate, is this CNC only useable for making firearms? If it is equally tasked with making non firearm related items, are you saying that any tool that may be put to making a firearm is protected under the 2A? I don't see how it is possible, but have heard that Bedoins can fashion most parts, if not the entire firearm, from pieces of steel as long as they have common hand tools; files and hand drills and bits.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

I think that is not quite what the judge said, but I have been swamped and only have had time to give his ruling a cursory review. It isn't clear that he will eventually find self manufacture unprotected by the 2A. He may find it impliedy protected, but he has not found that the 2A's "plain text" protects the right to self manufacture.

Not that it is important, but I inherited one of those self built rifles; one which a backwoodsman thorugh together from parts. A barrel from here and a lock from there.

He states his reading of Bruen is that if it's not protected by plain text, then it's not protected by the second amendment. That's his claimed reading. He also said that protecting CNC machines was a "penumbra" like when Roe protected aborting as part of the privacy right.

DD seemingly perceives a penumbra.

This judge would need some convincing to protect CNC machines.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

If I may play the devil's advocate, is this CNC only useable for making firearms? If it is equally tasked with making non firearm related items, are you saying that any tool that may be put to making a firearm is protected under the 2A? I don't see how it is possible, but have heard that Bedoins can fashion most parts, if not the entire firearm, from pieces of steel as long as they have common hand tools; files and hand drills and bits.

Are computers protected for first amendment protected communications ? Also all things people do in the name of religion is protected unless you hurt other humans.

Yes, I think all tools used to make firearms are protected, it makes sense because if you can ban the tool you can ban the guns made with the tool. It's an arms ban.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

If I may play the devil's advocate, is this CNC only useable for making firearms?

Of course not. But from what I understand this particular CNC machine only comes with coded instructions for producing firearms. On the other hand, most CNC machines do not come with code to make any particular part. They just offer the ability to be programed to automate the processes that were typically performed on manually operated machines.

If it is equally tasked with making non firearm related items, are you saying that any tool that may be put to making a firearm is protected under the 2A?

No. But the fact that a tool can be used to make a firearm or part of a firearm does not provide a basis for regulating or prohibiting its distribution and any such attempts based on possible use in manufacturing firearms is barred by the 2A.

I don't see how it is possible, but have heard that Bedoins can fashion most parts, if not the entire firearm, from pieces of steel as long as they have common hand tools; files and hand drills and bits.

Don't know but CNC machining centers, like the Haas VF2 in my shop, can easily produce firearm frames and receivers once you have the needed G-Code (the instruction that control the machine's movements) and the needed cutting tools.