Tea Leaf Reading on St. Benitez Timing????

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by Paladin

This is not meant to troll this thread but just a reminder of how much needs to be changed [...]

I wouldn't see it that way. This thread isn't about winning the war, but at least finally winning a battle. We've lost for so absurdly long that anything is sweet relief

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by Paladin

While I care about the 4 Benitez cases as much as anyone, my focus, my priority is on getting as many CA CCWers ASAP. The below are the issues/hurdles to full CCWing and cases to solve that IMO. You will notice only one case (with asterisk) for one of my identified issues is being judged by Benitez at any level (trial court).

GMC (Antonyuk 2)
Sensitive Places (Antonyuk 2 & CRPA v Glendale)
Roster (Boland & Renna)
Hicap (Duncan* & Wiese)
Only 1 gun in 30 days (???)
Loaded Open Carry (Nichols)

This is not meant to troll this thread but just a reminder of how much needs to be changed (and how many cases need to be won), before we have a decent Shall Issue CCW system in place in CA (not to even mention Constitutional Carry..).

If/when Benitez rules we should celebrate. But as Churchill said it?s only the end of the beginning. We?re about 6 weeks from the first anniversary of NYSRPA v Bruen and still have years of litigation and appeals to go just to win SI CCW.

Yeah. No one is challenging the CCW law, except perhaps Nichols and isn't his thing is open carry. Somone needs to go after the concealed carry law.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Yeah. No one is challenging the CCW law, except perhaps Nichols and isn't his thing is open carry. Somone needs to go after the concealed carry law.

That?s happening in NY, and it would seem to make more sense in CA to wait for the provisions of SB 2 to be enacted and operative before challenging them.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

That?s happening in NY, and it would seem to make more sense in CA to wait for the provisions of SB 2 to be enacted and operative before challenging them.

And has SB 2 passed? I realize it is likely to pass, but if it does will it be next January before it is operative and if it is then in effect can't the new law be easily include via amaending the complaint? If you follow the line of thinking your question covers, what is to stop CA from simply passing a new law with a tweak when the current law is decalared uncostitutional?

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by Paladin

While I care about the 4 Benitez cases as much as anyone, my focus, my priority is on getting as many CA CCWers ASAP. The below are the issues/hurdles to full CCWing and cases to solve that IMO. You will notice only one case (with asterisk) for one of my identified issues is being judged by Benitez at any level (trial court).

GMC (Antonyuk 2)
Sensitive Places (Antonyuk 2 & CRPA v Glendale)
Roster (Boland & Renna)
Hicap (Duncan* & Wiese)
Only 1 gun in 30 days (???)
Loaded Open Carry (Nichols)

This is not meant to troll this thread but just a reminder of how much needs to be changed (and how many cases need to be won), before we have a decent Shall Issue CCW system in place in CA (not to even mention Constitutional Carry..).

If/when Benitez rules we should celebrate. But as Churchill said it?s only the end of the beginning. We?re about 6 weeks from the first anniversary of NYSRPA v Bruen and still have years of litigation and appeals to go just to win SI CCW.

Thanks for this!

I received my Nevada County CCW on 5/2 (I had one in Sacramento County for 10 years).

During the interview, the reviewing Deputy told me that in CA, CCW / carry outside the home is a privilege, not a right - a privilege that can be revoked at any time for any reason the Sheriff deems fit. Clearly (again - because of the same kind of in artful language we had in Heller) SCOTUS has an obligation to flesh out Bruen - especially since inferior Courts and recalcitrant Legislatures are responding with a slew of new restrictions to try and circumvent it.

I was lucky - my entire process was under 90 days - pretty quick turn around in CA.

[Chewy65]

Bruen makes it perfectly clear that keeping and bearing arms is a "right". While some have claimed that a CCW is privlege, that regulation burdens the right and will be found unconstitutiional unless shown to pass the NHT test by demonstrating analagous regulatory measures at the relevant periods in history. I don't think there is a chance. The best the states have been able to come up with is laws barrinig sales to slaves, ex-slaves, and native americans, which is simply not the same as regulating whether individuals can be permitted to carry, though some argue them to be analogues since those laws and modern laws both prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by men beioeved to be dangerous.

Caifornia bars all men, both thought to be dangerous and law-abiding, oridinary citizens, from exercising the right to keep and bear concealable weapons in public, but allows individuals to seek carry permits.

[SpudmanWP]

Requiring a permit to carry passes Bruen's THT test and said as much in Bruen itself.
Whoever said CCWs are a privilege is an asshat that needs some training.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Requiring a permit to carry passes Bruen's THT test and said as much in Bruen itself.
Whoever said CCWs are a privilege is an asshat that needs some training.

Not quite - what Bruen said was the shall issue regimes were okay - but in any case only if the process is not subjective or onerous.

According to THT licenses were NEVER required for a right.

Keep that in mind.

[AlmostHeaven]

NYSRPA v. Bruen is a landmark ruling that will take quite a long time for lower courts to be settled on, especially because so many progressive activists in robes are determined to misinterpret THT as broadly as possible.

I reckon it will take two more Supreme Court cases to even get close to plugging the major loopholes.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Not quite - what Bruen said was the shall issue regimes were okay - but in any case only if the process is not subjective or onerous.

According to THT licenses were NEVER required for a right.

You would have to wait for a carry case based on a THT challenge to get details, but by Bruen already saying it's ok as long as it's not "subjective or onerous", it will be an uphill battle.

"Subjective" is pretty straightforward and is where "character references" will fail but "Onerous" is too vague and will lead to many lawsuits.

Is 8 hrs of training ok but 12 not?
Is 8 pistols per CCW ok but 3 not?
Is a 5-year renewal ok but 2 not?
Is a fee total of $250 ok but $500 not?

Lots of things to iron out.

Don't even get me started on National Reciprocity.....

[riderr]

SCOTUS accepted a shall issue (license) for a constitutional right to bear arms outside of the house. It's plain wrong. Same twisted logic can legalize a license to purchase a firearm.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

You would have to wait for a carry case based on a THT challenge to get details, but by Bruen already saying it's ok as long as it's not "subjective or onerous", it will be an uphill battle.

"Subjective" is pretty straightforward and is where "character references" will fail but "Onerous" is too vague and will lead to many lawsuits.

Is 8 hrs of training ok but 12 not?
Is 8 pistols per CCW ok but 3 not?
Is a 5-year renewal ok but 2 not?
Is a fee total of $250 ok but $500 not?

Lots of things to iron out.

Don't even get me started on National Reciprocity.....

Like I've been saying, if pro 2A justices don't start defining their terms, they leave it for the anti 2A judges to create their own defintions.

[Dr T]

Just going to toss this out regarding constitutional carry and permitted carry-with constitutional carry, the federal school gun free zones will be in effect and severely limit where a weapon can be carried whereas permitted carry is less restrictive

[WithinReason]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

You would have to wait for a carry case based on a THT challenge to get details, but by Bruen already saying it's ok as long as it's not "subjective or onerous", it will be an uphill battle.

"Subjective" is pretty straightforward and is where "character references" will fail but "Onerous" is too vague and will lead to many lawsuits.

Is 8 hrs of training ok but 12 not?
Is 8 pistols per CCW ok but 3 not?
Is a 5-year renewal ok but 2 not?
Is a fee total of $250 ok but $500 not?

Lots of things to iron out.

Don't even get me started on National Reciprocity.....

Even the "ironing out" will be onerous. I am hoping these things get settled in my lifetime...

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by riderr

SCOTUS accepted a shall issue (license) for a constitutional right to bear arms outside of the house. It's plain wrong. Same twisted logic can legalize a license to purchase a firearm.

Until a proper THT case comes, you can't say that a CCW will fail as there has not been any direct evidence given. You can't prove a negative.

I agree that license to buy is BS and fails the THT test.

[Paul49]

Originally Posted by riderr

SCOTUS accepted a shall issue (license) for a constitutional right to bear arms outside of the house. It's plain wrong. Same twisted logic can legalize a license to purchase a firearm.

Amen. The Constitution is my license. It is that simple. Anything less leads to all the erosions seen across the country.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Paul49

Amen. The Constitution is my license. It is that simple. Anything less leads to all the erosions seen across the country.

The Supreme Court agreed, by way of dicta, that bans on possession of firearms by felons and the adjudicated mentally ill are constitutional. Background checks and other licensing laws are theoretically designed to weed out people who are prohibited from possessing arms. It warned, however, that those laws should not be used (as they have been in California, NY and NJ, among others) to prevent the law-abiding from carrying firearms outside the home.

So the question to you is this: is the Supreme Court in its Heller and Bruen decisions wrong in permitting bans of designated persons? If not, how would you propose weeding out the prohibited persons from acquiring weapons?

[Drivedabizness]

Felons, by definition, have abdicated some of their rights by their conduct. The prohibition against felons and those adjudicated mentally ill, is settled history in our system of ordered liberty.That said, except in the most heinous circumstances, there should be a mechanism for the restoration of any rights abdicated upon satisfaction of objective criteria that indicate a person has paid their debt to society and or restored their mental health.
Virtually all of the so-called "mass shooters" were known to either law enforcement, the mental health community or both, prior to their violent acts. Not enough attention is paid to stopping these folks before they act.

[WithinReason]

Agreed.

[Bhobbs]

It’s been 3 months. I honestly expected him to put out opinions over time. I thought he would have had the Miller and Duncan rulings out by now. I guess he is going to issue all 4 at the same time, which seems odd. He must be using similar responses to the state’s historical “analogues”.

[Chewy65]

He may be waiting to see how the wind blows before putting on sail.

[Drivedabizness]

I'm getting tired of waiting too. As I said before, none of these cases are even close as a matter of law. It's about time Judges started saying so in very clear terms (as Benitez has done in the past).

I started this thread 7 weeks ago to take some pressure off the others (St. Benitez individual case threads). If you had asked me then if I thought we'd still be waiting I'd have said no.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

I started this thread 7 weeks ago to take some pressure off the others (St. Benitez individual case threads). If you had asked me then if I thought we'd still be waiting I'd have said no.

I feel the exact same way about Bianchi v. Frosh over here in the Fourth Circuit. I listened to the oral arguments on December 6, 2022. Two of the three judges sounded sympathetic to the plaintiff and affirming gun rights.

I thought we would get a ruling in April, but now May is coming to a close, and there is still movement.

171 days. I think about the case every day.

[igs]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

I'm getting tired of waiting too. As I said before, none of these cases are even close as a matter of law. It's about time Judges started saying so in very clear terms (as Benitez has done in the past).

I started this thread 7 weeks ago to take some pressure off the others (St. Benitez individual case threads). If you had asked me then if I thought we'd still be waiting I'd have said no.

It's called controlled opposition and you keep falling for it.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

He may be waiting to see how the wind blows before putting on sail.

The only way to get favorable winds is to issue pro 2A rulings. Letting the antis dictate the engagement is how you end up with Heller being ignored for 15 years.

[Silence Dogood]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Felons, by definition, have abdicated some of their rights by their conduct. The prohibition against felons and those adjudicated mentally ill, is settled history in our system of ordered liberty.That said, except in the most heinous circumstances, there should be a mechanism for the restoration of any rights abdicated upon satisfaction of objective criteria that indicate a person has paid their debt to society and or restored their mental health.
Virtually all of the so-called "mass shooters" were known to either law enforcement, the mental health community or both, prior to their violent acts. Not enough attention is paid to stopping these folks before they act.

I think it is important to recognize and remember that we, especially here in CA, are inundated by anti-gun rhetoric. As surely as your reviewing deputy in Nevada Co. was mistaken regarding the difference between a “privilege” and your constitutionally protected right to bear, it is incorrect to think that “mass shootings” are so common that something more needs to be done.

The mass murder that is committed annually by lunatics in this country is not statistically significant enough to justify infringing on the rights of the many even if doing so would universally save the lives of the few—a premise we know to be false from history in regimes where civilian arms are already/ have been banned.

Over a quarter of a billion people live in the U.S.A. A vast majority of us would live our entire lives completely and blissfully ignorant of “mass shootings” if it were nor for media propagation of these very rare occurances.

I do not mean to diminish the tragedy of these events. But to say not enough is done to stop them is like saying we don’t do enough to stop people from being struck by lightning. You would only think that to be logical if you were regularly told about people being stuck by lightning. The fact is that these events are not that common.

[AlmostHeaven]

Today is the last Friday in May. There are only four weeks left until the Supreme Court finishes the 2022-2023 session and adjourns until September.

I am praying extra hard tonight we see some movement, either in the Benitez cases or some other major gun rights lawsuit such as Bianchi v. Frosh.

[Sgt Raven]

Billy club law is shot down in Hawaii by a Trump Judge.



https://thereload.com/hawaii-agrees-...g-court-fight/

[mshill]

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven

Billy club law is shot down in Hawaii by a Trump Judge.



https://thereload.com/hawaii-agrees-...g-court-fight/

Never bring a baton to a gunfight.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by mshill

Never bring a baton to a gunfight.

A 2A win, is a win. It sounds like Hawaii is not going to appeal...

[JWHuey]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

I'm getting tired of waiting too. As I said before, none of these cases are even close as a matter of law. It's about time Judges started saying so in very clear terms (as Benitez has done in the past).

I started this thread 7 weeks ago to take some pressure off the others (St. Benitez individual case threads). If you had asked me then if I thought we'd still be waiting I'd have said no.

Been a lot of Friday's...

[arrix]

Looks like that misconduct complaint on Benitez worked. He's balking at making a decision.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by arrix

Looks like that misconduct complaint on Benitez worked. He's balking at making a decision.

That won't age well.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

I'm getting tired of waiting too. As I said before, none of these cases are even close as a matter of law. It's about time Judges started saying so in very clear terms (as Benitez has done in the past).

I started this thread 7 weeks ago to take some pressure off the others (St. Benitez individual case threads). If you had asked me then if I thought we'd still be waiting I'd have said no.

Regrettably, a judge doesn?t get to simply say,
‘None of the cases are even close as a matter of law”, and drop the gavel.

They have to explain every nuance of the facts which led them to that simple declaration. That not only requires full discussion of what applies and why, but also what does not apply and why.

How long should it take for a District Judge to issue an opinion? Would we be satisfied with a one month turn-time on a case?

Benitez has 4 cases. While similar issues are at base, the decisions have to be crafted in the context of each argument presented both for, and against. Then, the logic behind each decision has to be completely consistent with the others. There can be no holes or contradictions. All this has to be done in the context of the new THT lens established by SCOTUS. It’s a new game and Benitez has to apply the new rules exactly.

If it is still appropriate to refer to Judge Benitez as “Saint” Benitez, then it seems reasonable that we should have the patience of that saint.

[Bhobbs]

Benitez already used THT in his Miller and Duncan rulings. The 9th overturned his opinions specifically because he didn’t use the two step test.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Benitez already used THT in his Miller and Duncan rulings. The 9th overturned his opinions specifically because he didn?t use the two step test.

So what?

SCOTUS rejected the two step test.

Benitez now has 4 integrated cases with new information and argument provided by both Defendants and Plaintiffs, all of which has to be addressed anew.

[Bhobbs]

You said he has to do it in the context of the new THT test, but he already used THT before Bruen.

[JiuJitsu]

I would speculate that one of the bigger reasons his decisions are taking time is that he has to ensure he applies careful, consistent logic and reasoning across ALL of these. So not only each one individually, which takes time, but also across all of them so they are consistent and cohesive in their application of Heller/Bruen. This takes even more time.

Also, the state did throw a ton of questionable garbage into the mix (throwing poop at the wall), all of which also takes time to address.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

You said he has to do it in the context of the new THT test, but he already used THT before Bruen.

And this time the Defendants have to defend under THT.

The arguments are different than before.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

And this time the Defendants have to defend under THT.

The arguments are different than before.

He can still re-use a lot of his old work - especially now that SCOTUS has validated it.