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
  #1721  
Old 07-25-2019, 4:02 PM
Ceemack Ceemack is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB35 View Post
The LA/Oakland brief is hilarious.



So I guess the LEO have to give up their LCMs because they don't use them for self defense and they are only for military use on the battlefield.

I have to wonder if these people actually read what they write?
My favorite part was the instance in which a cop with a six-shot revolver was outgunned by a suspect with an "LCM". In 1994.

Bit of a reach.
Reply With Quote
  #1722  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:31 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 612
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post

I thought that attempting to present new evidence on appeal was a no-no absent extraordinary circumstances. If so, isn't the request for judicial notice the state filed unfair to the plaintiffs?
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #1723  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:57 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,272
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
I thought that attempting to present new evidence on appeal was a no-no absent extraordinary circumstances. If so, isn't the request for judicial notice the state filed unfair to the plaintiffs?
Stuff that is judicially noticeable is not considered evidence because it is stuff that is easily verifiable and can't be disputed.
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #1724  
Old 07-29-2019, 9:57 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,068
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Off-topic posts deleted - this thread is for the litigation only.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #1725  
Old 08-16-2019, 2:17 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wasn't CRPA's brief due yesterday?
Reply With Quote
  #1726  
Old 08-16-2019, 4:35 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 485
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Stuff that is judicially noticeable is not considered evidence because it is stuff that is easily verifiable and can't be disputed.
If the judge bases their ruling on something "noticeable" that is later proven false is that an easy appeal?
Reply With Quote
  #1727  
Old 08-19-2019, 10:07 AM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What time are they hearing this?

*EDIT*

Just realized it's at 1030am. Does anyone know when we can expect a decision based on history?
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE

Last edited by USMCmatt; 08-19-2019 at 10:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1728  
Old 08-19-2019, 10:49 AM
Roering's Avatar
Roering Roering is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 581
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
What time are they hearing this?

*EDIT*

Just realized it's at 1030am. Does anyone know when we can expect a decision based on history?
Reply With Quote
  #1729  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:25 AM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Wait... so it the mag injunction ruling today from the 9th or the ammo injunction req before Benitez?
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #1730  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:34 AM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 561
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
Wait... so it the mag injunction ruling today from the 9th or the ammo injunction req before Benitez?
Ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #1731  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:56 AM
Roering's Avatar
Roering Roering is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 581
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
Wait... so it the mag injunction ruling today from the 9th or the ammo injunction req before Benitez?
The latter
Reply With Quote
  #1732  
Old 08-19-2019, 12:02 PM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Copy, thanks!
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #1733  
Old 08-22-2019, 2:36 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wasn't CRPA's brief due on the 15th?

Quote:
Thu., August 15, 2019 Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1
I don't see anything new on the page for this case. Or did they get an extension?
Reply With Quote
  #1734  
Old 08-23-2019, 7:24 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,272
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Wasn't CRPA's brief due on the 15th?



I don't see anything new on the page for this case. Or did they get an extension?
Streamlined request [32] by Appellees California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio and Christopher Waddell to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellees California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio and Christopher Waddell answering brief due 09/16/2019. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [11378081] (DLM)
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #1735  
Old 08-23-2019, 2:14 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks Wolf!
Reply With Quote
  #1736  
Old 09-17-2019, 2:20 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Answering Brief for Appellees

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ring-Brief.pdf

Also, It looks like Paul Clement is now the counsel of record.
Reply With Quote
  #1737  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:46 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 694
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I only got part way through last night, but it is a clear, concise read. Good job, authors!
Reply With Quote
  #1738  
Old 09-18-2019, 1:06 PM
Ceemack Ceemack is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The plaintiffs' brief is impressive.

The defense's brief is somewhat chilling, with much of the argument revolving around the principles of "things are true because we say they are" and "the police power means we get to do pretty much what we want."

It's also interesting that the plaintiffs' brief relies on Heller, while the defendant's brief relies largely on a) circuit court decisions and b) exploiting the weaknesses of Heller. But it might be just enough to give activist judges enough cover to void the summary judgement.

It's hard to say how this will go. We'll really be sweating the next couple of weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #1739  
Old 09-19-2019, 9:13 AM
Tmckinney Tmckinney is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 307
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
If the judge bases their ruling on something "noticeable" that is later proven false is that an easy appeal?

The first part of your scenario be almost impossible. Judicial Notice is to put on record things we all know are true like 2+2=4 or that a street runs in a certain direction or the sun set at certain time. If here is any question that a fact may not be true, then the request would be denied, at least to that fact.
Reply With Quote
  #1740  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:45 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,825
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I can't imagine how or why California would want to fight this at this point.

The 9th is already 16-13, so for the state, they have no assurance of winning, and it could easily be 15-14 or 14-15 in our favor by the time this goes to en banc, and SCOTUS is now 4.75 to 4.25, and could soon enough be 5.75 to 3.25.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #1741  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:57 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 485
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I can't imagine how or why California would want to fight this at this point.



The 9th is already 16-13, so for the state, they have no assurance of winning, and it could easily be 15-14 or 14-15 in our favor by the time this goes to en banc, and SCOTUS is now 4.75 to 4.25, and could soon enough be 5.75 to 3.25.
Most on the left don't understand firearms at all. It a religious issue with them. They can't apply logic not can they stop. So just as we saw in Duncan it's only time until they let out enough rope to hang themselves.

I am if they understood statistics they would push for tax subsides on "assault weapons" and "LCMs" paid for with sin taxes on handguns.
Reply With Quote
  #1742  
Old 09-19-2019, 3:12 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 618
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Does anyone know who the judges are on this case?
Reply With Quote
  #1743  
Old 09-23-2019, 4:33 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Does anyone know who the judges are on this case?
We won't know until the week before oral arguments.

From the 9th Circuit's rules:

Quote:
Disclosure of Judges on Panels. The names of the judges on each panel are released to the general public on the Monday of the week preceding argument. At that time, the calendar of cases scheduled for hearing is posted in the San Francisco, Pasadena, Seattle, and Portland offices of the Clerk of Court and is forwarded for posting to the clerks of the district courts within the circuit. This provision permits the parties to prepare for oral argument before particular judges. Once the calendar is made public, motions for continuances will rarely be granted.
Reply With Quote
  #1745  
Old 09-23-2019, 4:40 PM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sorry, I know this is here somewhere I bet, but when is the next date of action for the case as it makes it way through?
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #1746  
Old 09-23-2019, 5:44 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
Sorry, I know this is here somewhere I bet, but when is the next date of action for the case as it makes it way through?
The state now gets a chance to reply to the CRPA's brief. I believe the reply is due 21 days after the CRPA's brief was submitted, which would be on 10/7.
Reply With Quote
  #1747  
Old 09-23-2019, 6:12 PM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
The state now gets a chance to reply to the CRPA's brief. I believe the reply is due 21 days after the CRPA's brief was submitted, which would be on 10/7.
That's not too terrible. Then it goes to 9th? Then in several months, we get an answer?
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #1748  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:50 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 694
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
That's not too terrible. Then it goes to 9th? Then in several months, we get an answer?
Several months? Not too likely. There is no time line for the court to order oral argument OR to issue its decision. It cold be months, it could be years. With the stay in effect, no one can buy new mags, but no one is required to dispose of the ones they already own either, just as it was before the new law was passed. So there really is no hurry--for the Court anyway. I think that a lot of these cases will be held until the Supreme Court issues its decision in the NYRPA v, NYC case (probably) next June, since a lot of judges think that the Supreme Court will set a standard of review for 2A cases that will apply to all pending cases.
Reply With Quote
  #1749  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:56 AM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Awesome, thank you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Several months? Not too likely. There is no time line for the court to order oral argument OR to issue its decision. It cold be months, it could be years. With the stay in effect, no one can buy new mags, but no one is required to dispose of the ones they already own either, just as it was before the new law was passed. So there really is no hurry--for the Court anyway. I think that a lot of these cases will be held until the Supreme Court issues its decision in the NYRPA v, NYC case (probably) next June, since a lot of judges think that the Supreme Court will set a standard of review for 2A cases that will apply to all pending cases.
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #1752  
Old 10-07-2019, 7:30 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Appellant’s Reply Brief
Reply With Quote
  #1753  
Old 10-07-2019, 8:38 PM
MC06's Avatar
MC06 MC06 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 102
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Utter garbage.

"Second, Plaintiffs’ takings claim also fails. Despite Plaintiffs’ refrain that the new possession law “dispossesses” owners of grandfathered LCMs, the fact remains that those individuals may retain possession of their magazines if they permanently modify them to hold no more than ten rounds of ammunition. In any event, the State may, under its police powers, prohibit possession of personal property that threatens public safety without paying just compensation under the Takings Clause, let alone warranting a permanent injunction of an important public-safety measure."
Reply With Quote
  #1754  
Old 10-07-2019, 8:39 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,026
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
I particularly like the part where they quoted Silveira v. Lockyer.
Reply With Quote
  #1755  
Old 10-08-2019, 8:36 AM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 1,084
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
I particularly like the part where they quoted Silveira v. Lockyer.
I can only read so much of that bull**** without screaming at my computer screen.
__________________
"Ya dude just bought my 67th gun today"......
Reply With Quote
  #1756  
Old 10-08-2019, 8:38 AM
AR15fan's Avatar
AR15fan AR15fan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 248
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foreppin916 View Post
I can only read so much of that bull**** without screaming at my computer screen.
I often wonder if opposing counsel actually BELIEVES the BS they write? Or if they sit around in their office thinking, “we really don’t have a legal leg to
Stand on, so let’s just make stuff up and argue and write to fill the pages.”

Crazy
Reply With Quote
  #1757  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:03 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Whether or not they believe it is largely irrelevant.

They are trying to convince a judge or at least give a judge enough of an excuse to decide in their favor.

Don't be surprised if they are effective. For instance, it would not surprise me if a judge with an agenda did buy the idea that if you require the magazine to be blocked that this does not constitute a taking. After all, you still possess the magazine after it has been permanently altered.

The fact that the magazine is permanently devalued and may now be unusable for the purpose for which you purchased it (being able to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading) may not be seen as relevant.

Actually, they can make the argument that since you cannot sell the magazine to someone else under the statute, the magazine has no monetary value. However stupid that may be, a motivated judge may buy into that argument.

The key is not whether anyone believes, the key is whether they can get a judge to rule their way.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #1758  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:55 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 694
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Whether or not they believe it is largely irrelevant.

Actually, they can make the argument that since you cannot sell the magazine to someone else under the statute, the magazine has no monetary value. However stupid that may be, a motivated judge may buy into that argument.

The key is not whether anyone believes, the key is whether they can get a judge to rule their way.
Not so sure about that, since it is the governmental action that resulted in a complete devaluation of the item. The question is the pre-law value of the item, and the damages are the difference between what it was worth before and what it is worth after the law goes into effect.
Reply With Quote
  #1759  
Old 10-08-2019, 11:18 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Not so sure about that, since it is the governmental action that resulted in a complete devaluation of the item. The question is the pre-law value of the item, and the damages are the difference between what it was worth before and what it is worth after the law goes into effect.
I'm not arguing that it makes sense, just that you may be able to get the judge to buy the argument.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #1760  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:45 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I'm not arguing that it makes sense, just that you may be able to get the judge to buy the argument.
That is what the appeal process is supposed to remedy. Sometimes it works as designed; other times it doesn't.
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 1:30 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.