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 12-19-2020, 12:03 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,417
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Nguyen vs Becerra 2020-Dec: USDC SDCA: challenge new 1 in 30

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploa...-ECF-Filed.pdf

Case 3:20-cv-02470-WQH-WVG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNT ONE
DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
U.S. CONST., AMENDS. II AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Quote:
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
1. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ laws and enforcement
policies, practices, customs, and actions individually and collectively prevent
Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ members and customers, and similarly situated individuals not
prohibited from possessing and acquiring firearms, from applying for, purchasing,
and taking possession of more than one handgun and/or semiautomatic, centerfire

rifle in any 30-day period violate the right to keep and bear arms protected under the
Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

2. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ laws and enforcement
policies, practices, customs, and actions individually and collectively treat Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs’ members and customers, and similarly situated individuals not prohibited
from possessing and acquiring firearms, differently than similarly situated
individuals who are not likewise restricted from applying for, purchasing, and taking
possession of more than one handgun and/or semiautomatic, centerfire rifle in a 30-
day period, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause;

3. A preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants and
their officers, agents, servants, employees, all persons in concert or participation
with them, and all who have notice of the injunction, from enforcing Defendants’
laws and enforcement policies, practices, customs, and actions that individually and
collectively prevent Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ members and customers, and similarly
situated individuals not prohibited from possessing and acquiring firearms, from
applying for, purchasing, and taking possession of more than one handgun and/or
semiautomatic, centerfire rifle in a 30-day period;
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-19-2020, 12:34 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,864
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Fingers crossed
__________________
One life so don't blow it......Always die with your boots on!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-19-2020, 12:56 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,901
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Notice of Related Cases

FPC Release
__________________

Last edited by HowardW56; 12-19-2020 at 12:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-11-2021, 3:13 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-12-2021, 1:24 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,193
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc

Last movement was 5/19/2021.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...95583.14.0.pdf

This is the scheduling conference that gives the deadline to various actions/motions. Final scheduled pre-trial conference will be 3/18/2022.

So expect various filings before that date and a hearing after that date. Early on in the case plaintiffs filed Notice of Related Cases as per Local Rule 40.1(f), likely to try to get Benitez assigned to their case, however it seems they were assigned William Q. Hayes, who I'm not aware off the top of my head whether he's on any other gun cases in the Southern District.

District Judge Robert Benitez is currently assigned to Duncan, Miller, and Fouts, while Renna is assigned to Chief District Judge Dana M Sabraw, though according to Local Rule 40.1.(a) it could be reassigned at any time with consent.

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 08-12-2021 at 1:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-09-2022, 12:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-09-2022, 1:43 PM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: OC
Posts: 6,393
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

__________________
Freedom isn't free...



iTrader
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-02-2022, 2:20 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Since I seriously doubt that Demrats will ever be able to support a THT defense of this law, per Bruen.

I believe that Ms Nguyen will get a slam dunk on default.

Last edited by pacrat; 07-02-2022 at 2:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-02-2022, 9:22 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ORDER Requesting Supplemental Briefs.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-02-2022, 9:36 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Since I seriously doubt that Demrats will ever be able to support a THT defense of this law, per Bruen.

I believe that Ms Nguyen will get a slam dunk on default.
I do not know about a slam dunk and I seriously doubt a default. It's not just this law but nearly every CA firearm restriction will have tough going against THT. Thomas not only gave us a sword he gave us nukes!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-04-2022, 1:38 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Since I seriously doubt that Demrats will ever be able to support a THT defense of this law, per Bruen.

I believe that Ms Nguyen will get a slam dunk on default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
I do not know about a slam dunk and I seriously doubt a default. It's not just this law but nearly every CA firearm restriction will have tough going against THT. Thomas not only gave us a sword he gave us nukes!
Ms Nguyen and all other citizens of Ca. Already had protection against this law under the Heller "common use" ruling. But now, since Bruen, the fancy legal dance, known as "The Leftist 2-Step" is no more. And that the "THT" criteria is in place.

Justice Thomas was brilliant. The 9th just losing the 2-step, to dance around Heller. Would have assured a win.

I call that a "Double Whammy Slam Dunk".

I know that's not "proper legalese". But hey WTF, winning is winning, no matter how you label it.

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-04-2022, 6:31 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Next step and when?

ETA: Judge Hayes is wasting no time. Supplemental briefs in support of their MSJs were due July 29 and briefs in opposition to opponent’s supplemental briefs were due Aug 12. I assume the next step is a decision on the cross MSJs?

Last edited by Paladin; 10-05-2022 at 4:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-05-2022, 12:19 PM
marcusrn's Avatar
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 1,154
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Important case, stay strong Michelle Nguyen, John Pillips, Darrin Prince, Dominic Boguski, Jay Medina, Frankie Colletti! You are true patriots!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-05-2022, 8:08 PM
ziegenbock ziegenbock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc

HAYES, Judge:
Before the Court is the parties’ Third Joint Motion and Stipulation to Amend
Supplemental Briefing Order. (ECF No. 45.) Having considered the motion and pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the parties’
motion.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended Supplemental Briefing
Order (ECF No. 40) is amended as follows: Each party’s reply brief is simultaneously due on or before October 10, 2022.
Dated: October 4, 2022
Case 3:20-cv-02470-WQH-MDD Document 46 Filed 10/04/2
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-11-2022, 8:53 AM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,086
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OK, so where are the reply briefs?
__________________
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
  #16  
Old 10-11-2022, 9:50 AM
dndgeek dndgeek is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by command_liner View Post
OK, so where are the reply briefs?
You can view them here
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-02-2022, 5:25 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dndgeek View Post
What's next and when? Just awaiting judge’s decision on cross MSJs?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-10-2023, 7:15 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
What's next and when? Just awaiting judge’s decision on cross MSJs?
Last week Judge Hayes shot down both sides MSJs. Looks like they’re going to trial.

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-21-2023, 11:20 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin: Case Management Conference held on 2/21/2023. Amended Scheduling Order dates to enter separately. (Plaintiff Attorney Raymond DiGuiseppe). (Defendant Attorney Jerry Yen). (no document attached) (smd) (Entered: 02/21/2023)
Quote:
THIRD Amended Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery And Other Pre-Trial Proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 2/21/2023.(alns) (Entered: 02/21/2023)
New docket entries.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-21-2023, 12:47 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,234
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I do not understand what factual issues need to be decided at trial?

This seems like a pure question of law?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-01-2023, 2:19 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
MINUTE ORDER OF TRANSFER. Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin is no longer assigned. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal for all further proceedings. The new case number is 20CV2470-RSH-BGS.(no document attached) (alns) (Entered: 05/01/2023)
The judge is getting changed. I think the old and new judges were both Obama judges.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-24-2023, 5:12 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 53 Scheduling Order by Dominic Boguski, Frank Colletti, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Jay Medina, Michelle Nguyen, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., John Phillips, Darin Prince, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Second Amendment Foundation. (DiGuiseppe, Raymond) (Entered: 08/24/2023)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...95583.56.0.pdf

Looks like they was Summary judgement requests move to September 15, 2023.

Last edited by abinsinia; 08-24-2023 at 5:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-28-2023, 7:55 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
ORDER granting 56 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge William Q. Hayes on 8/25/2023. (alns) (Entered: 08/28/2023)
New date Sept. 15.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-16-2023, 7:24 AM
tast101 tast101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 176
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So what do the updates for this one mean? That they’ve submitted everything and are now waiting for judgement?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-16-2023, 1:34 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tast101 View Post
So what do the updates for this one mean? That they?ve submitted everything and are now waiting for judgement?
Looks like they filed their motions yesterday.

Here's the docket,

fpc,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...95583.60.0.pdf


California,
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...95583.59.0.pdf

Bunch of additional exhibits at the docket here,

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...guyen-v-bonta/
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-16-2023, 1:54 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

States seems to argue the same old garbage .. They claim it doesn't trigger 2A because you can buy one gun, and they claim that's enough.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-16-2023, 7:18 PM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 3,486
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
States seems to argue the same old garbage .. They claim it doesn't trigger 2A because you can buy one gun, and they claim that's enough.

That fly's straight against the Heller ruling.
__________________

DILLIGAF
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
"Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
"The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-17-2023, 7:24 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Raven View Post
That fly's straight against the Heller ruling.
Naturally, they claim Heller's "Conditions and Qualifications" supports their position.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-17-2023, 7:30 AM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,457
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Fortunately, between 1789-1868, there was NO LIMIT on how many firearms you could buy at any one time.
This is sure to fail under Bruen/McDonald/Heller.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-17-2023, 11:06 AM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 345
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It seems regardless of the law in question CAs go-to arguments are all nearly identical.

1. This gun infringing law doesnt even IMPLICATE the 2A (lol).

2. But if it does we have loads of totally analogous laws like *checks notes* gun powder storage fire code laws and unconstitutional racist bans on disfavored groups.

3. But but muh interest balancing! [keeps almost compulsively inserting random public safety pleas even though they are irrelevant]

4. Rinse and repeat.

Its almost literally the same sh1t in every case the state is currently defending, man.

Last edited by JiuJitsu; 09-17-2023 at 11:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-17-2023, 12:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,474
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiuJitsu View Post
It seems regardless of the law in question CAs go-to arguments are all nearly identical.

1. This gun infringing law doesnt even IMPLICATE the 2A (lol).

2. But if it does we have loads of totally analogous laws like *checks notes* gun powder storage fire code laws and unconstitutional racist bans on disfavored groups.

3. But but muh interest balancing! [keeps almost compulsively inserting random public safety pleas even though they are irrelevant]

4. Rinse and repeat.

Its almost literally the same sh1t in every case the state is currently defending, man.
The entire gun control apparatus operates as a top-down organization. Ivory tower elites give "gun safety" groups billions of dollars to draft model legislation, file anti-Second Amendment legal briefs, fund fraudulent gun violence research studies, and craft media narratives. Democratic politicians, activists, academics, and pundits dutifully fall in line and regurgitate the same tyrannical sewage in every single state.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-13-2023, 3:23 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
RESPONSE in Opposition re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment Renewed filed by Rob Bonta, Luis Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jerry T. Yen ISO Defendants Opp to Plaintiffs MSJ, # 2 Proof of Service)(Yen, Jerry) (Entered: 10/13/2023)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...95583.61.0.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-13-2023, 3:31 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by California Department of Justice Footnote 3
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants admitted that the OGM law implicates the
Second Amendment in the last round of summary judgment briefing. Pls.’ Mem. of
P. & A. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. for Summ. J. (Pls.’ MSJ), Dkt. No. 60-1, at 4.
However, any such admission was made solely for purposes of that pre-Bruen
round of summary judgment briefing and in the context of the means-end scrutiny
no longer applicable to Second Amendment claims.
See Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (pre-Bruen), Dkt. No. 33-1, at 3-4; Defs.’
Summ. J. Mot. (pre-Bruen), Dkt. No. 29, at 11 (stating that “[f]or purposes of this
motion only, the Attorney General assumes . . . that California’s OGM law
implicates the Second Amendment”).
So they admitted it implicates the 2nd amendment, but now they can't argue that so they backtrack.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-13-2023, 3:53 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment Renewed filed by Dominic Boguski, Frank Colletti, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Jay Medina, Michelle Nguyen, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., John Phillips, Darin Prince, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Second Amendment Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Response to Defendants' SOUMF, # 2 Declaration re Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit Index, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(DiGuiseppe, Raymond) (Entered: 10/13/2023)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...95583.62.0.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-13-2023, 5:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,474
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
So they admitted it implicates the 2nd amendment, but now they can't argue that so they backtrack.
The fact that the Ninth Circuit will buy this naked legal gamesmanship without one second of honest scrutiny infuriates me beyond measure.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-13-2023, 6:44 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
RESPONSE in Opposition re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment Renewed Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Facts filed by Rob Bonta, Luis Lopez. (Yen, Jerry) (Entered: 10/13/2023)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...95583.63.0.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-23-2023, 12:35 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
MINUTE ORDER: The Court will hear oral argument on all pending motions on Wednesday, December 6, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 14B before the Honorable William Q. Hayes as to 58 MOTION to Preclude Testimony of George A. Mocsary, 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment Renewed. (no document attached) (maq) (Entered: 10/23/2023)
Hearing Dec. 6th
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-30-2023, 9:42 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
REPLY to Response to Motion re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment Renewed filed by Dominic Boguski, Frank Colletti, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Jay Medina, Michelle Nguyen, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., John Phillips, Darin Prince, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Second Amendment Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' SOUMF)(DiGuiseppe, Raymond) (Entered: 10/27/2023)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...95583.67.0.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-01-2023, 8:27 AM
7.62mm_fmj 7.62mm_fmj is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like Judge Hayes is a Bush Jr. appointee. How is he on 2A cases? or how can I find out?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-01-2023, 1:32 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nice brief. Thoroughly shreds Bonta's brief. The principle point is that there were NO regulations limiting the number of firearms one could purchase until thee 1970s, hardly a poster child for a longstanding tradition as required by Bruen.
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 6:11 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy