|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
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:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "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."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. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
Last edited by HowardW56; 12-19-2020 at 12:59 PM.. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
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.. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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.. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
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!
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
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?
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 10-05-2022 at 4:15 PM.. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Important case, stay strong Michelle Nguyen, John Pillips, Darrin Prince, Dominic Boguski, Jay Medina, Frankie Colletti! You are true patriots!
__________________
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
You can view them here
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Looks like they was Summary judgement requests move to September 15, 2023. Last edited by abinsinia; 08-24-2023 at 5:14 PM.. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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/ |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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" |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
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.. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
The fact that the Ninth Circuit will buy this naked legal gamesmanship without one second of honest scrutiny infuriates me beyond measure.
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|