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
  #4521  
Old 06-25-2022, 6:54 PM
spectralhunter's Avatar
spectralhunter spectralhunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 520
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exnds View Post
SCOTUS is well aware of all the games the 9th likes to play and if they GVR Duncan/ANJRPC the outcome will be the same, and will end up right back in their lap a few years down the road. Knowing this and since the magazine cases are already up for consideration is there a decent chance they will simply take the cases and rule once and for all? Seems like it's the expeditious thing to do rather than GVR and waste more court time.
I did predict Justice Thomas wanted to retire with a landmark 2A case as his signature case and it happened. Yeah, yeah, it wasn't a tough guess but I did guess it. I did suspect he wanted to at least force strict scrutiny for future 2A cases. I was pleasantly surprised he went even further.

I don't think SCOTUS made such a huge ruling and letting all these other 2A cases stuck in limbo. I hope and I am guessing they will take at least a few waiting for cert and GVRing them back to the circuit courts to show they mean business. I don't think they will actually take any 2A cases now that they've set the standard.
__________________
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
Reply With Quote
  #4522  
Old 06-25-2022, 7:34 PM
Flight4 Flight4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolt_Action View Post
I don’t think most of you get it. The 9th circuit doesn’t care one wit about what the law says or what SCOTUS says. They don’t care if an antigun law is blatantly unconstitutional. They’ve already reached their conclusion, and nothing is going to change their mind. The ONLY way we are going to win on any 2A issue in the 9th’s jurisdiction will be to lose, petition to SCOTUS, and win there. That’s the only way.
Well that's exactly where we are with this case, isn't it?
  1. Summary Judgement, Ban is unconstitutional
  2. Judgement Affirmed by Appeals Panel
  3. Judgement Reversed by En Banc Appeal (Using WRONG test)
  4. Appealed to US Supreme Court
Reply With Quote
  #4523  
Old 06-25-2022, 7:37 PM
Bolt_Action Bolt_Action is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 529
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flight4 View Post
Well that's exactly where we are with this case, isn't it?
  1. Summary Judgement, Ban is unconstitutional
  2. Judgement Affirmed by Appeals Panel
  3. Judgement Reversed by En Banc Appeal (Using WRONG test)
  4. Appealed to US Supreme Court
We’re not there until they grant cert. If they remand to the 9th, they’ll just find some way to justify the same conclusion they came to earlier, and we’ll be right back to where we are now, just a few years later.

The Supreme Court needs to take one more case and spell it all out in black and white, once and for all. They need to state that all bans on any features of any firearm, cosmetic or functional, are all illegal. All of them. Bans on silencers, barrel lengths, pistol grips, firing modes, magazine capacity, etc etc. All of these laws are unconstitutional. If any branch of the military, any police force has ever used it or anything like it, it’s protected by the 2A and it cannot be banned. End of story.

Last edited by Bolt_Action; 06-25-2022 at 7:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4524  
Old 06-25-2022, 8:54 PM
IronsightsRifleman IronsightsRifleman is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 348
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolt_Action View Post
We’re not there until they grant cert. If they remand to the 9th, they’ll just find some way to justify the same conclusion they came to earlier, and we’ll be right back to where we are now, just a few years later.

The Supreme Court needs to take one more case and spell it all out in black and white, once and for all. They need to state that all bans on any features of any firearm, cosmetic or functional, are all illegal. All of them. Bans on silencers, barrel lengths, pistol grips, firing modes, magazine capacity, etc etc. All of these laws are unconstitutional. If any branch of the military, any police force has ever used it or anything like it, it’s protected by the 2A and it cannot be banned. End of story.
In Bruen I think they have already said as much.
"To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation."

Try as they might, there are no plausible 1789-era analogs to be found for the 9th to justify restricting magazine capacities or pistol grips, especially against the "dangerous and unusual" standard outlined. Yes, it would be more expedient for us if SCOTUS grants cert and rules as they have in Bruen, but it is far better in the long term to force the 9th to start making 2A decisions as they have now been explicitly instructed.
Reply With Quote
  #4525  
Old 06-25-2022, 9:36 PM
Batman's Avatar
Batman Batman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mission Viejo (OC)
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 173 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flight4 View Post
I find it very interesting when considering the Bruen clarity that 2 steps is one step too many, in Duncan v. Bonta the important "Step 1" has already been determined at every level of review. (9th en banc "assumed without deciding.")
“any law that comes close to categorically
banning the possession of arms that are commonly
used for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on
the Second Amendment,”

Surveying the historical record,
the (9th 3 member) panel found no evidence that magazine capacity
restrictions have any historical pedigree. While
“firearms capable of holding more than ten rounds of
ammunition have been available in the United States
for well over two centuries,” restrictions on such
magazines have been rare, relatively recent, and
short-lived: “Only during Prohibition did a handful of
state legislatures enact capacity restrictions,”
They cornered themselves with the 2 step approach, and by conceding step 1 and focusing on step 2. Therefore, IMO it is already clear and written into the record everything that shows the magazine law is unconstitutional. Seems like it should be just a formality for that law to go away.

IANAL, and quotes come from here
Somehow I can foresee something like this happening in the 9th...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVon5xcDjMU

Reply With Quote
  #4526  
Old 06-26-2022, 8:16 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,475
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolt_Action View Post
I don’t think most of you get it. The 9th circuit doesn’t care one wit about what the law says or what SCOTUS says. They don’t care if an antigun law is blatantly unconstitutional. They’ve already reached their conclusion, and nothing is going to change their mind. The ONLY way we are going to win on any 2A issue in the 9th’s jurisdiction will be to lose, petition to SCOTUS, and win there. That’s the only way.
I agree with this. There is a chance, though, that there are areas where a police chief or sheriff may release a statement regarding what the police will and will not enforce, and the DA's office may or may not choose to pursue, in the interest of local funding not being available for a protracted (and likely losing) legal battle.
__________________
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
  #4527  
Old 06-26-2022, 9:22 AM
titan's Avatar
titan titan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 652
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

So they aren’t going to issue a ruling on magazines this session?
Reply With Quote
  #4528  
Old 06-26-2022, 11:07 AM
1911-CV 1911-CV is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 429
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default No

Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
So they aren’t going to issue a ruling on magazines this session?
- No.
Reply With Quote
  #4529  
Old 06-26-2022, 5:16 PM
titan's Avatar
titan titan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 652
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

Well no surprise, lol.
Reply With Quote
  #4530  
Old 06-26-2022, 5:21 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 9,219
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
Somehow I can foresee something like this happening in the 9th...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVon5xcDjMU

Definitely on a parallel with 9th Circus rulings.
Reply With Quote
  #4531  
Old 06-26-2022, 11:43 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 21,517
iTrader: 211 / 100%
Default

Orders and opinions are coming today (Monday 6/27) - let's hope for some GVRs! Too soon?
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #4532  
Old 06-27-2022, 12:43 AM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 9,219
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Orders and opinions are coming today (Monday 6/27) - let's hope for some GVRs! Too soon?
After more than 5 decades of oppression. It's never "TOO SOON".
Reply With Quote
  #4533  
Old 06-27-2022, 1:57 AM
HibikiR HibikiR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: LA County
Posts: 2,227
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

A remand, even if we win, won't help our fellow gun owners out East, right?

Let's just hope for a grant plus win and be done with this nationwide.
Reply With Quote
  #4534  
Old 06-27-2022, 6:41 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,324
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HibikiR View Post
A remand, even if we win, won't help our fellow gun owners out East, right?

Let's just hope for a grant plus win and be done with this nationwide.
A remand means our folks win. Even if that isn't exactly precedential (I think) it will be very influential. That's especially true since a remand would almost certainly mean that the case had been vacated by the SCOTUS which means that the appellate courts decision was killed by SCOTUS because it was erroneous.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #4535  
Old 06-27-2022, 7:26 AM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 119
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does not appear on todays list of orders.
Reply With Quote
  #4536  
Old 06-27-2022, 7:28 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 21,517
iTrader: 211 / 100%
Default

Well we did not get any order for summary disposition for Duncan. But US v Taylor resulted in quite a few GVR today, and that decision was 6 days ago.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...22zor_b97d.pdf

I wonder if, because Duncan also petitions for a hearing on "takings", that it will not be resolved so simply? And would we even want it to be resolved with a GVR on 2A issues alone, or is the "takings" argument just as important? Because Bruen did not cover takings...

Could/would they split the case into a grant for hearing on takings, plus a vacate and remand on the 2A issues? Or does the "takings" issue become moot if the 2A issue makes any "takings" of magazines unlikely?
__________________
.


Last edited by SkyHawk; 06-27-2022 at 1:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4537  
Old 06-27-2022, 2:53 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 424
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Well we did not get any order for summary disposition for Duncan. But US v Taylor resulted in quite a few GVR today, and that decision was 6 days ago.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...22zor_b97d.pdf

I wonder if, because Duncan also petitions for a hearing on "takings", that it will not be resolved so simply? And would we even want it to be resolved with a GVR on 2A issues alone, or is the "takings" argument just as important? Because Bruen did not cover takings...

Could/would they split the case into a grant for hearing on takings, plus a vacate and remand on the 2A issues? Or does the "takings" issue become moot if the 2A issue makes any "takings" of magazines unlikely?
If scotus agrees with its application in this case, the takings argument may be closer to resolutions per this 28j letter.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-v.-Hassid.pdf
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez

Last edited by ShadowGuy; 06-27-2022 at 2:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4538  
Old 06-27-2022, 11:18 PM
Odd_Ball's Avatar
Odd_Ball Odd_Ball is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 254
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Could/would they split the case into a grant for hearing on takings, plus a vacate and remand on the 2A issues? Or does the "takings" issue become moot if the 2A issue makes any "takings" of magazines unlikely?
The "takings" issue would become moot if the 2A prevents the State from confiscating or requiring destruction of legally owned (standard capacity) magazines. There would be no "taking" for the Court to address in that scenario.

If somehow post-Bruen litigation is unsuccessful in overturning magazine and AWB bans, or the bump-stock and impending ghost gun bans, then we might see cases where the takings issue is front and center.
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 5:11 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical