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
  #121  
Old 03-14-2018, 9:24 PM
manfred manfred is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If every conservative voted, and all voted for Travis Allen we might have a chance at the general election. A lot of young dems don't vote.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq
Typically those who maintain the mindset of chasing a non-violent utopia are those who live in a world of privilege. Those people have the luxury of looking at violence and societal turmoil from an ivory tower, rather than from an earthbound perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 04-04-2018, 3:39 PM
Hoop's Avatar
Hoop Hoop is offline
Ready fo HILLARY!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Auburn
Posts: 11,410
iTrader: 69 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Yes. The passage of Prop. 63 is what opened my eyes. Before then, I could not grasp just how so many could be so stupid. But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. What is especially disheartening is that, except for Thomas, bless his soul, the SCOTUS has shown no interest in protecting the 2A rights of those of us in states like CA. And, this is dangerous, because this vile disease seems to be contagious. Just look at the Florida students who seem to believe that preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms, especially the most popular modern sporting rifle, would have done more, or even anything, to protect them more than having several of their teachers armed with firearms would have done. It does not take much imagination to think that the situation would have turned out much different if that courageous coach had been armed when he confronted the shooter.
The only thing that will fix it is if our side starts fighting for the freedom we want. If we could organize "Sanctuary" cities/counties for gun owners that would be a start.

Otherwise get ready for all out firearms bans because the Left will never, ever stop.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 04-05-2018, 9:00 PM
eswrite's Avatar
eswrite eswrite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 463
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseboy84 View Post
Yes, but that was an especially pathetic and lame argument, and at the time I thought it made little sense. The first brief filed that was originally posted was bad lawyering, and I say that because the arguments weren't in any way persuasive.

I recall they we're arguing it was forfeiture which is fine and had merit, but there was some straight NRA jingoism in the original brief that amounted to "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with 30 round magazines to help us defend ourselves." That's a paraphrase of one of the original arguments filed in the original brief, and if someone such as myself who is pro 2A can easily realize the flaws and baseless claim that is, what would a crazy liberal judge think?

That's why when it was dismissed by judge he basically laughed the NRA jingoism argument off.
The best argument may well be that 10 is an arbitrary, capricious number. On what evidentiary basis did the government pick 10 as the right number? Why not 11, 9, or (gasp!) Zero?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 04-05-2018, 9:27 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
The best argument may well be that 10 is an arbitrary, capricious number. On what evidentiary basis did the government pick 10 as the right number? Why not 11, 9, or (gasp!) Zero?
Bill Ruger sold guns with 10rd magazines. He was happy to screw us all to try and get a few more points if market share.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 04-06-2018, 1:25 AM
CalNRA's Avatar
CalNRA CalNRA is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,696
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
There hasn't been much good for any gun owner in CA in the last 40 years. Let's face it, even if these CASESgo to SCOTUS, Gorsuch needs help on 2A stuff. He can't do it alone

What's your point?
Well now do you see my point?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
This is not rocket surgery.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 04-06-2018, 11:22 AM
GW's Avatar
GW GW is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The Evergreen State
Posts: 15,469
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Bill Ruger sold guns with 10rd magazines. He was happy to screw us all to try and get a few more points if market share.
For God's sake. Bill Ruger is dead 15 years now.
Time to get over what a dead man did over 20 years ago to preserve his company, however misguided he was.
The new management is of a different mindset.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by GW; 04-06-2018 at 11:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 04-06-2018, 11:35 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW View Post
For God's sake. Bill Ruger is dead 15 years now.
Time to get over what a dead man did over 20 years ago to preserve his company, however misguided he was.
The new management is of a different mindset.
I agree. I didn't have a problem buying a new 10/22. But the question was "why ten", the answer is the only gun industry guy that was on the grabbers side at the time said, ten and he just happened to have 10rd guns to sell. Remember that was before the bx25, all the larger capacity 10/22 magazines were third party.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 04-07-2018, 4:54 PM
monkeshine monkeshine is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 54
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Rant

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
The best argument may well be that 10 is an arbitrary, capricious number. On what evidentiary basis did the government pick 10 as the right number? Why not 11, 9, or (gasp!) Zero?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus View Post
There's a point in the complaint where they start to develop a good equal protection case... but then they never truly develop it further...by USSC precedent, the only reason anybody is armed is for their own personal self defense as there exists no duty to defend another individual even for police officers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen One View Post
Uh.... this has to be the dumbest quote of the judgement. Judge Shubb cites case law from magazine-banning states.... as evidence of "every other court to examine 'LCM' bans". Really....? He does realize that is a circular logic fallacy?
To me it is very simple. "Hey Judge, there are 3 armed men heading down the hallway right now! They are going to burst into this courtroom in 5 seconds with guns blazing! Do you want your six shot revolver or 10 shot pistol?"

"I hope you got good aim! Those fixed magazines are difficult to change out while taking fire from 3 directions. Did you bring your wrench?"

"Sorry I can't help defend you, Judge, you forbade me from carrying here. Good luck and godspeed!"

10 is arbitrary and capricious and also contrary to the Heller/McDonald rulings. If a gun's basic utility is self defense, and if that gun is protected by strict scrutiny, then anything that inhibits its utility should be struck down as unconstitutional. Otherwise we get down to "Yes you can have all the guns you want as long as you make them out of corn flakes, see I support the 2nd Amendment!".

This "intermediate scrutiny" bull**** is, well, bull****. "You have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you can use automatic typesetters! And why do you have 3 pens when you can only write with one at a time?"

I know it isn't this simple, but it is this obvious - to me anyway.

Last edited by monkeshine; 04-07-2018 at 5:02 PM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 04-11-2018, 8:46 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeshine View Post
To me it is very simple. "Hey Judge, there are 3 armed men heading down the hallway right now! They are going to burst into this courtroom in 5 seconds with guns blazing! Do you want your six shot revolver or 10 shot pistol?"

"I hope you got good aim! Those fixed magazines are difficult to change out while taking fire from 3 directions. Did you bring your wrench?"

"Sorry I can't help defend you, Judge, you forbade me from carrying here. Good luck and godspeed!"

10 is arbitrary and capricious and also contrary to the Heller/McDonald rulings. If a gun's basic utility is self defense, and if that gun is protected by strict scrutiny, then anything that inhibits its utility should be struck down as unconstitutional. Otherwise we get down to "Yes you can have all the guns you want as long as you make them out of corn flakes, see I support the 2nd Amendment!".

This "intermediate scrutiny" bull**** is, well, bull****. "You have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you can use automatic typesetters! And why do you have 3 pens when you can only write with one at a time?"

I know it isn't this simple, but it is this obvious - to me anyway.
I don't see how we get strict scrutiny until SCOTUS rules it is required. I still don't see how assult weapon bans withstand intermediate scrutiny. With rifles and assult rifles used so rarely in violent crime as compared to handguns how can safety be used to support assult weapon bans. With intermediate scrutiny the government should still be required to show the regulation or law achieves the goal.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 05-29-2018, 1:43 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So the case has been stayed pending the NINTH circuit ruling in Duncan.
The lower court in Duncan will issue a ruling in Duncan down the road so it is very likely that both cases will leave the lower court at the same time.
I have a strong guess that both cases will go up to the Ninth Circuit at roughly the same time and we will have a Peruta/Richards type oral argument down the road
Attached Files
File Type: pdf wiese order staying case.pdf (110.8 KB, 74 views)

Last edited by wolfwood; 05-29-2018 at 2:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 06-20-2018, 9:48 AM
Philosophical's Avatar
Philosophical Philosophical is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: So Cal
Posts: 149
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Question for my retarded self not being able to interpret legal nonsense. Is "possession" the same as "use"? I don't see this being asked, but can you currently "use" high cap mags in California as of now?
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 06-30-2018, 3:14 PM
4GLOCK30 4GLOCK30 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 314
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If I missed this....did the 9th court rule yet on Prop 63?

any search I find just explains the injunction by Judge Benetiz to AG Becerra to not enforce or implement Proposition 63's Section 32310(c) and Section 32310(d).

On July 27, 2017, Attorney General Xavier Becerra appealed the district court's injunction to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

So its been almost a year....has the 9th court ruled yet?
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 06-30-2018, 3:51 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophical View Post
Question for my retarded self not being able to interpret legal nonsense. Is "possession" the same as "use"? I don't see this being asked, but can you currently "use" high cap mags in California as of now?
Yes. But, you can also have them confiscated and destroyed under PC 18010.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...0.&lawCode=PEN
Quote:
32390.
Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any large-capacity magazine is a nuisance and is subject to Section 18010.
PC 18010: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=18010.
Quote:
18010.
(a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of, importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale, giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a nuisance under any of the following provisions:
(20) Section 32390, relating to a large-capacity magazine.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 06-30-2018, 3:56 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4GLOCK30 View Post
If I missed this....did the 9th court rule yet on Prop 63?

any search I find just explains the injunction by Judge Benetiz to AG Becerra to not enforce or implement Proposition 63's Section 32310(c) and Section 32310(d).

On July 27, 2017, Attorney General Xavier Becerra appealed the district court's injunction to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

So its been almost a year....has the 9th court ruled yet?
Read post #130.....
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 06-30-2018, 4:25 PM
mjmagee67's Avatar
mjmagee67 mjmagee67 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Free America, Idaho.
Posts: 2,775
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW View Post
For God's sake. Bill Ruger is dead 15 years now.
Time to get over what a dead man did over 20 years ago to preserve his company, however misguided he was.
The new management is of a different mindset.
You beat me to it.........
__________________
If you want change you have to put in your 2 cents, you can't just sit on the sidelines and whine.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 06-30-2018, 5:00 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
The best argument may well be that 10 is an arbitrary, capricious number. On what evidentiary basis did the government pick 10 as the right number? Why not 11, 9, or (gasp!) Zero?
Right question, but wrong approach. This is an old, flawed line of thinking. It's not your burden to make that argument. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and the state must show that their law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. So if small cap mags further public safety or reduce killings or whatever the important govt interest is claimed to be, the govt bears the burden of showing that the law under review furthers that interest -- how effectively do small cap mags reduce killings? Sure didn't seem to be a problem for Seung-Hui Cho, so the govt needs to show studies which prove that small cap mags are saving lives, not just make the claim.

And that's intermediate scrutiny. Another Trump pick or two and you might be looking up at something more..."strict".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
I don't see how we get strict scrutiny until SCOTUS rules it is required.
Correct, we won't, but SCOTUS won't, so we never will


Quote:
I still don't see how assult weapon bans withstand intermediate scrutiny.
Try being intellectually dishonest, and you'll immediately see how
__________________

Last edited by speedrrracer; 06-30-2018 at 5:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 06-30-2018, 5:57 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Right question, but wrong approach. This is an old, flawed line of thinking. It's not your burden to make that argument. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and the state must show that their law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. So if small cap mags further public safety or reduce killings or whatever the important govt interest is claimed to be, the govt bears the burden of showing that the law under review furthers that interest -- how effectively do small cap mags reduce killings? Sure didn't seem to be a problem for Seung-Hui Cho, so the govt needs to show studies which prove that small cap mags are saving lives, not just make the claim.

And that's intermediate scrutiny. Another Trump pick or two and you might be looking up at something more..."strict".



Correct, we won't, but SCOTUS won't, so we never will




Try being intellectually dishonest, and you'll immediately see how
The real problem it's immediate scrutiny has been water down to nothing. The "state interest" can be as lose as letting people feel safer even if it doesn't make them safer. We even have impossible regulations doesn't negate them. I don't even see how these stand up to rational basis. These courts have shown they are ready to find and exploit every argument for the state. Our only hope are some rulings the side of Heller and McDonald or more. Or a federal preemption securing our second amendment rights from the tyranny of the majority ala voting rights act.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 06-30-2018, 6:02 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
The real problem it's immediate scrutiny has been water down to nothing.
In the 9th, sure. Worrying about what the 9th says on any gun-related issue is simply a waste of time. Just laugh at whatever stupidity they vomit up and move on. Same for other anti-2A circuits.

Intermediate scrutiny, or better, will be alive and well for any 2A cases which get to SCOTUS, and that's where it matters. If Winkler, et al, are right and Kennedy was the reason no cert was granted these past years, then that problem has been solved and we can expect to start the long process of re-claiming our lost civil rights.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 06-30-2018, 7:10 PM
Unbekannt Unbekannt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 355
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

By the time this case gets to the Supremes, Trump will have made three appointments. It will be seven to two. Knowing this, the Prayer should have asked for Beccera to be imprisoned.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 06-30-2018, 7:30 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Bill Ruger sold guns with 10rd magazines. He was happy to screw us all to try and get a few more points if market share.
Ummm......No.

Here’s a bit more background. Ruger believed that negotiating mag capacity would stop the anti-gun grabs. And SAAMI was in on it. The intent was to support banning 15-round+ Mags.

Quote:
Sturm, Ruger & Company General Counsel (later CEO) Steve Sanetti defending Ruger’s and SAAMI’s (Small Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute) support for a ban on over-fifteen-round magazines.

“After the [1989 Bush] import ban was announced,” Sanetti writes, “and after long consideration, the SAAMI member companies felt that a substitute had to be offered which respected the right of all law abiding citizens to own all firearms of their choice, yet which responded to the public outcry concerning the highly visible shootings involving dozens of shots being fired from so-called ‘assault weapons,’”
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ind...s-magazine-ban
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 07-18-2018, 9:26 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So the motion to dismiss is pending in this case so I think that down the road this case and Duncan will be heard at the same time in front of the Ninth
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 07-18-2018, 9:46 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
So the motion to dismiss is pending in this case so I think that down the road this case and Duncan will be heard at the same time in front of the Ninth
I'm confused, I thought the motion to dismiss was granted months ago, and the case was dead.

Don't tell me CGF appealed that...

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-18-2018 at 9:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 07-18-2018, 10:07 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I'm confused, I thought the motion to dismiss was granted months ago, and the case was dead.

Don't tell me CGF appealed that...
I looked at the docket today. CGF was given leave to amend which they did.
CGF filed a amended complaint and the State filed a mtd.
Then both parties agreed to stay the case pending the outcome of Duncan at the Ninth.

Now that Duncan has been decided the stay should be lifted. The judge should be ruling on the amended complaint shortly and rule how he did before. That should end the case. Duncan is pending a decision on the summary judgement.
So most likely both will go up on appeal at the same time.

That is the most likely outcome.
What also could happen is the Duncan judge could rule against BOTH parties on summary judgement and demand that a jury trial be held. That would take awhile so Weiss would go up first.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 07-18-2018, 10:47 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I looked at the docket today. CGF was given leave to amend which they did.
CGF filed a amended complaint and the State filed a mtd.
Then both parties agreed to stay the case pending the outcome of Duncan at the Ninth.

Now that Duncan has been decided the stay should be lifted. The judge should be ruling on the amended complaint shortly and rule how he did before. That should end the case. Duncan is pending a decision on the summary judgement.
So most likely both will go up on appeal at the same time.

That is the most likely outcome.
What also could happen is the Duncan judge could rule against BOTH parties on summary judgement and demand that a jury trial be held. That would take awhile so Weiss would go up first.
Thanks for the info, but I have to ask... why the HELL is CGF continuing this Weiss case?? I don't see any good coming from it.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 07-21-2018, 11:17 AM
OC_Gunman's Avatar
OC_Gunman OC_Gunman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Thanks for the info, but I have to ask... why the HELL is CGF continuing this Weiss case?? I don't see any good coming from it.
There is only one reason why that case is continuing: Ego on the part of Bill Weiss, and his clique.
__________________
"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions...a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal..." - Thomas Jefferson
P.S. "OC" in "OC Gunman" does NOT stand for "Open Carry"
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 07-23-2018, 5:09 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,083
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OC_Gunman View Post
There is only one reason why that case is continuing: Ego on the part of Bill Weiss, and his clique.
You should bite your tongue and delete your statement.

Bill is a great guy and supports any and every org that fights for 2A rights.

With a new judge on SCOTUS, both lawsuits can be advantageous to the 2A
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 07-23-2018, 5:17 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,489
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
.

With a new judge on SCOTUS, both lawsuits can be advantageous to the 2A
Not when one has already damaged the other.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 07-24-2018, 7:01 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,083
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Not when one has already damaged the other.
That’s not the case when rogue anti judges make rulings. Notice how I was referring to SCOTUS where a new make up will overturn bad judicial decisions as was designed
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 02-17-2019, 1:33 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,617
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
What also could happen is the Duncan judge could rule against BOTH parties on summary judgement and demand that a jury trial be held. That would take awhile so Weiss would go up first.
This is exactly what is happening. Duncan is proceeding on the merits and Wiese has another hearing on a Motion to Dismiss on February 19. See the attached Amicus brief filed by the CRPA. I have a couple of immediate concerns:

First, just WHY IN THE HELL is this case still proceeding?? Duncan is going well, and the preliminary injunction was upheld at the 9th Circuit. As wolfwood points out, if Wiese loses on Wednesday and appeals the dismissal, then this case is going to be taken up first by the 9th. That means we could get bad precedent on Wiese, negating all of the success and hard work on Duncan. That is bad, bad, bad.

Second, this Amicus brief is yet another example of the drain of resources resulting from the duplicate suits. Obviously, CRPA hopes that Wiese is successful on the motion to avoid the situation described above, but this is pulling away resources that CRPA could be utilizing on other issues.

Wiese v. Becerra - 2019-02-12 CRPA's Amicus Brief.pdf
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 02-19-2019, 6:55 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,617
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Motion was taken under submission today. No decision yet.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 02-26-2019, 10:08 AM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,617
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The order has issued and the case actually survived the motion to dismiss. While the vagueness and overbreadth claims have been dismissed, the Second Amendment, takings, and equal protection claims survive. This is good news, in that the 9th Circuit will now not have an opportunity to take this case up prior to Duncan.

One thing I couldn’t help but to notice in reading the parties’ briefs is that the Duncan case isn’t discussed in great detail. Yet the court’s order cites Duncan as pretty much the sole reason why the Weise case is surviving here. I get why DOJ wouldn’t focus on it since it is not helpful, but why wouldn’t the Weise attorneys? The discussion of Duncan was the primary focus of the CRPA amicus brief, and to be honest, I’m not sure the case survives without it.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.

Last edited by BumBum; 02-26-2019 at 12:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 02-26-2019, 10:19 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Arrow

Here is the order

https://www.scribd.com/document/4005...ird-12b6-Order
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 02-26-2019, 11:34 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you. It makes for a rather interesting read.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:04 AM
USMCM16A2 USMCM16A2 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,964
iTrader: 109 / 100%
Default

Good read. A2
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 03-13-2019, 11:10 AM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,274
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You should bite your tongue and delete your statement.

Bill is a great guy and supports any and every org that fights for 2A rights.

With a new judge on SCOTUS, both lawsuits can be advantageous to the 2A
He can be a great, supportive, stand up guy and also make bad legal maneuvers that sink other cases. I used to think the more cases the merrier, but then an attorney on our own forum pointed out the potential for substantive damage that working in competing silos can create. We're on the same team, so both legal teams should be working together.... that includes knowing when to back down and stategically withdraw so as to not sink the more successful case. If Bill's case sinks this one, he'll still be a stand up guy that's done a lot, it's just that he'll have to own up to the fact he sunk his ship and the other ship too.

I truly hope that losing doesn't happen but, if I'm being honest, I can't help but view the relationship between the two legal cases as similar to the relationship between the democrats and the new "justice democrats". Both sides are so convinced of their righteousness that they aren't willing to work together in harmony or back down for the greater good of the cause. We've been applauding dem disunity while not adequately addressing the divisions among ourselves. A divided cause at war with itself simply cannot win.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 03-18-2019, 1:24 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,555
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Would someone post a Cliff Notes version of what all this means to the CA shooter in March of 2019?

I cant handle reading all this stuff as the vast majority of it is useless back and forth banter.

I'd like to suggest that someone like Librarian or similar post stickies for any IMPORTANT LEGAL STUFF WE ALL SHOULD BE AWARE OF IN PLAIN EASY TO UNDERSTAND ENGLISH!
__________________
Quote:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.
--Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. --Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 03-18-2019, 2:49 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Duncan v. Becerra:
Challenged the provisions of Proposition 63 and led to an injunction against the implementation of the ban on standard capacity magazines. This prevented thousands of California gun owners from becoming criminals or having to forfeit their lawfully owned property.

The case moves forward retaining 3 bases for action re: banning of LCMs:
-Infringes on 2A;
-Constitutes an illegal "taking" of property. (5A)
-Unequal protection between those who can retain the mags and those who can't. (14A)
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 03-18-2019 at 2:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 03-30-2019, 8:38 AM
jrr jrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 630
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This case needs to go away NOW. With the win in Duncan there is nothing more to gain here, and with a more hostile judge there is a tremendous amount to lose. If they don't walk into court Monday morning with a motion to dismiss I am never donating to CalGuns again.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 03-30-2019, 11:42 AM
jj805's Avatar
jj805 jj805 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Moorpark
Posts: 4,498
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
This case needs to go away NOW. With the win in Duncan there is nothing more to gain here, and with a more hostile judge there is a tremendous amount to lose. If they don't walk into court Monday morning with a motion to dismiss I am never donating to CalGuns again.
Or at the very least request that the case be stayed until Duncan is fully litigated.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 04-02-2019, 8:34 AM
Non Political Californian Non Political Californian is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 234
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manfred View Post
If every conservative voted, and all voted for Travis Allen we might have a chance at the general election. A lot of young dems don't vote.
As an election officer, I'll tell you that I see swarms of so-called students dropping in and having no idea what they are voting for, just that they have a voter guide.
It would be entirely possible to pose as a ****lib organization and give them our voter guides instead, they would never even know.
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 9:06 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.