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
  #1  
Old 07-01-2019, 7:12 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Jones v Becerra, SDCA - Age-Based Ban on Firearm Purchases

Gun Owners, Rights Organizations Sue California, Attorney General Becerra in New Federal Lawsuit Over State’s Age-Based Ban on Firearm Purchases

SAN DIEGO, CA (JULY 1, 2019) — A new federal lawsuit was filed in federal district court in San Diego today, announced two individual plaintiffs and the institutional parties to the case, advocacy organizations The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The case, captioned Jones, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., challenges on Second Amendment grounds the State of California’s discriminatory age-based general ban on firearm purchases by legal, law-abiding adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21. The plaintiffs are represented by lead counsel John W. Dillon of Carlsbad, California-based Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP. A copy of the court filing can be accessed at www.firearmspolicy.org/jones.

“Once individuals turn eighteen, they are adults in the eyes of the law,” explained Dillon. “Law-abiding adults are entitled to fully exercise all of their fundamental rights, including their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, not just hunting or sport.”

Adults who are not violent criminals or mentally ill should have access to the full scope of Second Amendment rights, the plaintiffs say. “The individuals involved in this case are adults, who are not otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms, and who want to exercise their right to purchase firearms,” Dillon said. “The State’s actions and policies to deny them their fundamental rights are unconstitutional and wrong.”

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right and adults over the age of eighteen but under twenty-one are not second-class people,” said FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. “This case seeks to restore the Second Amendment human rights of legal adults who are being prevented from exercising them because of unconstitutional laws, policies, practices, customs that the State of California defendants are known to enforce.”

“The Second Amendment fully applies to all non-prohibited adults, period,” commented CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman. “California cannot deny a fundamental, enumerated right to adults over the age of 18 that have no disqualifying criminal or mental health history.”

“We’re going to court against this law because it clearly violates the Second Amendment rights of young adults,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “When a citizen turns 18 years old in this country, he or she is considered a legal adult, free to exercise their rights under the Constitution, and that certainly should include the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But this California law turns that concept on its ear, with very few exceptions, such as possessing a valid hunting license. Our individual plaintiffs do not hunt, and have no intention of pretending to be hunters, just to exercise their constitutional rights.”

Californians who are at least 18 years old but not yet 21, who are not otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms due to criminal or mental health history, and who have been denied their right to purchase a firearm due to their age, should contact attorney John W. Dillon or the organizations’ Legal Action Hotline immediately at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or 855-252-4510 (24/7/365).

Second Amendment Foundation press release

Jones v Becerra Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-01-2019, 8:54 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

Yup. Either make the age of adulthood 21 for everything (including marriage, sexual consent, signing legal documents, joining military, etc.) or else make the age of adulthood 18 for everything. Pick one.. you can't just cherrypick and decide that people in a range of different ages are "minors" for some things and "adults" for other things. It's ridiculous. I don't care if they decide that age is 16, 18, 19, 21, or 25... just pick a damn age and apply it to everything, and stop moving the damn goal posts.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-01-2019 at 8:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-01-2019, 9:21 PM
vintagearms's Avatar
vintagearms vintagearms is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 6,513
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Yup. Either make the age of adulthood 21 for everything (including marriage, sexual consent, signing legal documents, joining military, etc.) or else make the age of adulthood 18 for everything. Pick one.. you can't just cherrypick and decide that people in a range of different ages are "minors" for some things and "adults" for other things. It's ridiculous. I don't care if they decide that age is 16, 18, 19, 21, or 25... just pick a damn age and apply it to everything, and stop moving the damn goal posts.
I'd say 18 and call it a day for every state.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-02-2019, 2:09 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 697
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Many states that had an 18 year old age for alcohol have changed to 21, or 18 for bear/wine and 21 for the hard stuff. Too many problems with drunk drivers. My old stomp0ing ground was Louisiana. When I started college a long time ago, it was 18 for everything, but no more.

I had a case in which the age of being an "adult" for the liquor liability law wa an issue. A draft stature had specified 21, but a later version (and for no apparent reason) changed that to an "adult" without specification of age. As it turns out, California use both ages in different statutes, so it is a mixed bag as to whether the courts will agree that there is not inherent right as to the age at which one becomes an adult, ad therefore the state has the right to set it wherever it wants. And as it stands, the state has a 21 year old requirement for handguns, perhaps due to the fact that such arms are used more often in shootings than any other; is it any wonder that "AWs" are (on obviously slanted statistics) viewed as being just as "dangerous"? Good luck, but it will be a hard one to reel in.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-02-2019, 3:59 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The case has been assigned to Judge M. James Lorenz.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-02-2019, 5:39 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,185
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
The case has been assigned to Judge M. James Lorenz.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Judg...hrome&ie=UTF-8

An 84 yr old Bezerkley Law School Grad appointed by Slick Willy................
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-02-2019, 6:01 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 618
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So what happens when the plaintiff's turn 21 and this case is still on appeal. I mean, these case drag on for decades ..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-02-2019, 6:05 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
So what happens when the plaintiff's turn 21 and this case is still on appeal. I mean, these case drag on for decades ..
It looks like more plaintiffs are being sought, but wouldn't this fall under "Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review"?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-02-2019, 6:28 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,070
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

While I agree the suit is justified, and any attack on the nonsense applied against CA gun owners is a good idea in the abstract, is this a wise use of funds just now?

The pleadings in my mailbox, nearly at the level of Democrat fund-raising, persist in telling me someone does not have enough money to prosecute already-existing cases.
__________________
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
  #10  
Old 07-02-2019, 6:43 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
The pleadings in my mailbox, nearly at the level of Democrat fund-raising, persist in telling me someone does not have enough money to prosecute already-existing cases.
Hopefully that's not the case

While the Firearms Policy Coalition doesn't have a very extensive record, it's hard for me to believe that the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation would put their names on this if that was the case.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-02-2019, 6:53 PM
freonr22's Avatar
freonr22 freonr22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 12,401
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Hopefully that's not the case

While the Firearms Policy Coalition doesn't have a very extensive record, it's hard for me to believe that the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation would put their names on this if that was the case.
Well Brandon is involved in Cgf, (or was, no indication hes not) and FPC. So, why wouldn't he support himself?
__________________
<img src=http://calgunsfoundation.org/images/stories/San-Benito.jpg border=0 alt= />[IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.png[/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
We will win. We are right. We will never stop fighting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
They don't believe it's possible, but then Alison didn't believe there'd be 350K - 400K OLLs in CA either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by louisianagirl View Post
Our fate is ours alone to decide as long as we remain armed heavily enough to dictate it.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-02-2019, 6:58 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 FirearmFino View Post
Hopefully that's not the case



While the Firearms Policy Coalition doesn't have a very extensive record, it's hard for me to believe that the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation would put their names on this if that was the case.
Already forgot about their large capacity magazine lawsuit that they filed months after Duncan? I remember it well, because it quickly crashed and burned and, along the way, nearly FUBAR'd Duncan too.

Probably they could have better spent those funds on something else... Like, I don't know... Maybe funding the Duncan case. But nope, they wanted their own case that they could use to generate their own donations, knowing fully well that they were essentially diverting donations away from Duncan.

My favorite part was when they used the news of the Duncan win to try to solicit more donations for themselves, despite having no involvement in Duncan other than being an obstacle in its path to success.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-02-2019 at 7:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-02-2019, 7:25 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Already forgot about their large capacity magazine lawsuit that they filed months after Duncan? I remember it well, because it quickly crashed and burned and, along the way, nearly FUBAR'd Duncan too.
Ah right, I did forget that they were the ones who filed Wiese, and I didn't realize how FPC and Calguns were connected.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-03-2019, 1:47 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,890
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Already forgot about their large capacity magazine lawsuit that they filed months after Duncan?
The Firearms Policy Coalition case was filed first on 4/28/2017, and Duncan was filed on 5/17/2017.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-03-2019, 2:38 PM
MolonLabe2008's Avatar
MolonLabe2008 MolonLabe2008 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,911
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Many states that had an 18 year old age for alcohol have changed to 21, or 18 for bear/wine and 21 for the hard stuff. Too many problems with drunk drivers. My old stomp0ing ground was Louisiana. When I started college a long time ago, it was 18 for everything, but no more.

I had a case in which the age of being an "adult" for the liquor liability law wa an issue. A draft stature had specified 21, but a later version (and for no apparent reason) changed that to an "adult" without specification of age. As it turns out, California use both ages in different statutes, so it is a mixed bag as to whether the courts will agree that there is not inherent right as to the age at which one becomes an adult, ad therefore the state has the right to set it wherever it wants. And as it stands, the state has a 21 year old requirement for handguns, perhaps due to the fact that such arms are used more often in shootings than any other; is it any wonder that "AWs" are (on obviously slanted statistics) viewed as being just as "dangerous"? Good luck, but it will be a hard one to reel in.
Consuming alcohol is not a protected Constitutional right.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-05-2019, 9:06 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,071
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MolonLabe2008 View Post
Consuming alcohol is not a protected Constitutional right.
21st amendment disagrees with you
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-05-2019, 9:15 PM
Yodaman Yodaman is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,171
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
21st amendment disagrees with you


Well played!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-06-2019, 12:59 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 289
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It does? The 21st amendment repealed prohibition on "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.” It doesn't guarantee the right to consume or possess. In fact, it allows the states to heavily regulate both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
21st amendment disagrees with you
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-07-2019, 8:07 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 852
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
21st amendment disagrees with you
The 18th amendment demonstrates the mechanism and only way the fed government or states should be able to completely ban anything. The 21st demonstrates that right being taken back from the feds and given to the states. The 2nd doesn’t seem to grant the state or feds that power to regulate to no end where as alcohol they said differently in the 21st.
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-07-2019, 8:36 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,752
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Among these are Life, Liberty and The Pursuit or Happyness

Includes intoxicating substances.

Rights reserved by the people take precedence over states claims.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-08-2019, 9:54 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 289
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You are quoting the declaration of independence, not the constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Among these are Life, Liberty and The Pursuit or Happyness

Includes intoxicating substances.

Rights reserved by the people take precedence over states claims.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-10-2019, 4:58 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 697
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MolonLabe2008 View Post
Consuming alcohol is not a protected Constitutional right.
You beg the question, unless you are arguing that the State can enact no restrictions on the right to bear arms--i.e., that even a 2 year old has the right to run around cocked and locked. I don't see any court accepting such a proposition, but instead, that any right of nonadults is subject to parental control--and the state is the superparent.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-10-2019, 5:04 PM
CaliforniaCowboy's Avatar
CaliforniaCowboy CaliforniaCowboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 792
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Yup. Either make the age of adulthood 21 for everything (including marriage, sexual consent, signing legal documents, joining military, etc.) or else make the age of adulthood 18 for everything. Pick one.. you can't just cherrypick and decide that people in a range of different ages are "minors" for some things and "adults" for other things. It's ridiculous. I don't care if they decide that age is 16, 18, 19, 21, or 25... just pick a damn age and apply it to everything, and stop moving the damn goal posts.
The dems want to lower the voting age to 16
__________________
Why Brits do not have a 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-22-2019, 2:25 PM
crasch crasch is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 25
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy View Post
The dems want to lower the voting age to 16
That's because they have brainwashed children. It takes late stage adult hood to make most people to stop voting for cronies Democrats.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Embarking on a great crusade to stamp out runaway decency in the west.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-26-2019, 7:13 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Other due dates:
Quote:
NOTICE AND ORDER for Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. An Early Neutral Evaluation will be held on 9/30/2019 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major. Joint Discovery Plan due 9/20/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 8/22/2019.(lrf)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-27-2019, 10:36 AM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,207
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Many states that had an 18 year old age for alcohol have changed to 21, or 18 for bear/wine and 21 for the hard stuff. Too many problems with drunk drivers. My old stomp0ing ground was Louisiana. When I started college a long time ago, it was 18 for everything, but no more.

I had a case in which the age of being an "adult" for the liquor liability law wa an issue. A draft stature had specified 21, but a later version (and for no apparent reason) changed that to an "adult" without specification of age. As it turns out, California use both ages in different statutes, so it is a mixed bag as to whether the courts will agree that there is not inherent right as to the age at which one becomes an adult, ad therefore the state has the right to set it wherever it wants. And as it stands, the state has a 21 year old requirement for handguns, perhaps due to the fact that such arms are used more often in shootings than any other; is it any wonder that "AWs" are (on obviously slanted statistics) viewed as being just as "dangerous"? Good luck, but it will be a hard one to reel in.
Winning anything is a challenge, I'm hopeful on two counts.

The firearm involved in the Heller case was a handgun. And for some reason lost on me, the decision made reference to handguns being especially well suited for self-defense in the home. Paired with the 5th Circuit Court's reasoning in their decision upholding a ban on FFL sales to 18 to 20 year olds.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...59-CV0.wpd.pdf

In that case out of TX the 5th based their decision in part on the fact that an 18 to 20 year old could purchase a handgun privately. As in a truly private, paperless sale. That's not an option in CA where all handgun sales must go through an FFL. There is in CA a defacto prohibition on any 18 to 20 year old legally acquiring a handgun for self-defense in the home.

All of this means nothing to the CA courts and especially the 9th. And the court could simply say "the legislature gets to set age limits" as it sees fit and be done with it. The legislature can set age limits for voting, operating a motor vehicle on a public way, marriage, entering into a contract, consuming alcohol, smoking, etc. None of which are rights but each of which, it would be said, have an impact on public safety. I'm not on board with that line of thinking, but many will be.

As an aside, reading the 5th's decision, they put 18 to 20 year olds just a hair's breadth above criminals and other miscreants for their inclination to do wrong. I'm about 40 years past that age group, but reading it - it was fairly offensive. They're not the brightest lot out there, but the court treated them poorly.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-27-2019, 2:39 PM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 930
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is part two of a squeeze play. The other part was introduced earlier.

It goes like this:

1) California says the state can impose a tax on the enumerated rights? OK, then Georgia says it can impose a tax on the non-enumerated right of abortion. Lets say, $10K per event. Litigation underway.

2) California says the state can impose age restrictions on enumerated rights? OK, we can have Alabama raise the abortion age to 45. Lets litigate! We can meet at the USSC.


Since Heller, every piece of litigation in this domain must be examined in the shadow and domain of abortion.
__________________
What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-27-2019, 5:42 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,185
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by command_liner View Post
This is part two of a squeeze play. The other part was introduced earlier.

It goes like this:

1) California says the state can impose a tax on the enumerated rights? OK, then Georgia says it can impose a tax on the non-enumerated right of abortion. Lets say, $10K per event. Litigation underway.

2) California says the state can impose age restrictions on enumerated rights? OK, we can have Alabama raise the abortion age to 45. Lets litigate! We can meet at the USSC.


Since Heller, every piece of litigation in this domain must be examined in the shadow and domain of abortion.
I CALL BS

Roe.................1973 was settled law, 25 yrs before Heller in 2008. And has nothing to do with Heller. Unless a woman wants to store her firearm inside her lady parts. And a law is passed to forbid it.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-02-2019, 3:04 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT by Beebe Family Arms and Munitions LLC, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Firearms Policy Foundation, Thomas Furrh, Matthew Jones, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation.

Quote:
Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for preliminary injunction. This motion will be filed the week of October 1, 2019. The parties have previously met and agreed that they will file a joint stipulation seeking to amend the briefing schedule and hearing date for the preliminary injunction motion after the motion is filed. The parties will meet and confer further on an agreed briefing and hearing schedule, and file their joint stipulation shortly after Plaintiffs file their motion.

Last edited by FirearmFino; 10-02-2019 at 3:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-02-2019, 3:12 PM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 565
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
While I agree the suit is justified, and any attack on the nonsense applied against CA gun owners is a good idea in the abstract, is this a wise use of funds just now?

The pleadings in my mailbox, nearly at the level of Democrat fund-raising, persist in telling me someone does not have enough money to prosecute already-existing cases.
I agree. I question what the FPC actually does. My money goes to the CRPA.
They are always begging. I like Adam from TGC but I find FPC annoying at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-04-2019, 6:22 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Quote:
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Notice is hereby given that on November 18, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. ... Plaintiffs will move for preliminary injunction under Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Plaintiffs will seek an order enjoining Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his agents, servant, employees, and those working in active concert with him, from enforcing or giving effect to California Penal Code, §25710 during the pendency of this action.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-10-2019, 6:04 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

SCHEDULING ORDER REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-10-2019, 9:23 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 697
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Without reading the papers, I just can't see, from a practical perspective, a judge is issuing a preliminary injunction allowing young people to continue to buy rifles and shotguns while the case is pending, which could easily be two or more years, when at least one federal court has held that the restriction is valid.
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 12:12 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.