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
  #1601  
Old 09-08-2022, 9:33 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 9,628
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911su16b870 View Post
The ammunition purchasing scheme/law is not keeping anyone safe or ammo out of prohibited persons possession. It has caused many tens of thousands of unprohibited persons to be denied their 2A right due to clerical process inconsistencies.
So you're saying it is working exactly as planned.
Reply With Quote
  #1602  
Old 09-08-2022, 9:35 AM
ASD1's Avatar
ASD1 ASD1 is offline
1/2 BANNED
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 1,601
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
So you're saying it is working exactly as planned.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1603  
Old 09-09-2022, 2:58 PM
1911su16b870's Avatar
1911su16b870 1911su16b870 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,434
iTrader: 167 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
So you're saying it is working exactly as planned.
...just like the 2A rights deniers wanted it to...
__________________
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon.

NRA Endowment Life Member, CRPA Life Member
GLOCK (Gen 1-5, G42/43), Colt AR15/M16/M4, Sig P320, Sig P365, Beretta 90 series, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer
Remington Nylon, 1911, HK, Ruger, Hudson H9 Armorer, just for fun!
I instruct it if you shoot it.
Reply With Quote
  #1604  
Old 09-09-2022, 6:34 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Appellee's brief was due today.... I haven't seen anything filed for Rhode
Reply With Quote
  #1605  
Old 09-09-2022, 6:55 PM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 97
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They sometimes file it the evening before the deadline then post the PDF on their website in the morning.
Reply With Quote
  #1606  
Old 09-09-2022, 7:03 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiuJitsu View Post
They sometimes file it the evening before the deadline then post the PDF on their website in the morning.
Yes but I will see precisely when it's filed on twitter, and nothing has been filed yet
Reply With Quote
  #1607  
Old 09-09-2022, 7:21 PM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 97
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Interesting. Where do you find that info on Twitter?
Reply With Quote
  #1608  
Old 09-09-2022, 7:56 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiuJitsu View Post
Interesting. Where do you find that info on Twitter?
@2aupdates
Reply With Quote
  #1609  
Old 09-12-2022, 10:41 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,639
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So there's no filing ?
Reply With Quote
  #1610  
Old 09-12-2022, 10:43 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,639
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think there was an extension,

Quote:
09/02/2022 96 Filed text clerk order (Deputy Clerk: WL): Appellees' motion (Docket Entry # [95]) for an extension of time to file their supplemental brief until September 22, 2022, is granted. [12532495] (WL) [Entered: 09/02/2022 11:00 AM]
Reply With Quote
  #1611  
Old 09-12-2022, 11:59 AM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 97
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Watching all these big 2A cases in CA is like watching paint dry.
Reply With Quote
  #1612  
Old 09-12-2022, 12:06 PM
Ned Ryerson's Avatar
Ned Ryerson Ned Ryerson is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Lathrop, CA
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiuJitsu View Post
Watching all these big 2A cases in CA is like watching paint dry.
Especially when the people providing play-by-play commentary on it aren't professional painters.
__________________
"Pull!"
Reply With Quote
  #1613  
Old 09-12-2022, 12:49 PM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 97
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[raises hand] Exactly.
Reply With Quote
  #1614  
Old 09-12-2022, 4:47 PM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 97
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ok, well the upside of being a non-painter watching the paint drying is that this case got me to finally get going on my FFL03 while the paint keeps drying.
Reply With Quote
  #1615  
Old 09-12-2022, 5:28 PM
swiftone swiftone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 841
iTrader: 286 / 100%
Default

Well the 03 is just half of the equation. Got to get a COE.

Hope you don't have a problem with the COE. I went to renew mine almost 2 years ago and was told they could not find one in my name using my information....when I had the bloody thing right in front of me.

Long story short is it expired and it takes 3 to 6 months to get a response to emails (and it is a canned response) and forget about phone calls.

And just in case you think this is a one time deal, my shooting partner is going through the exact same deal. He even paid Micheal and associates for an hours time to see if they could help. Nope.
Reply With Quote
  #1616  
Old 09-12-2022, 5:40 PM
sfhondapilot sfhondapilot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: 415 and 530
Posts: 659
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swiftone View Post
Well the 03 is just half of the equation. Got to get a COE.

Hope you don't have a problem with the COE. I went to renew mine almost 2 years ago and was told they could not find one in my name using my information....when I had the bloody thing right in front of me.

Long story short is it expired and it takes 3 to 6 months to get a response to emails (and it is a canned response) and forget about phone calls.

And just in case you think this is a one time deal, my shooting partner is going through the exact same deal. He even paid Micheal and associates for an hours time to see if they could help. Nope.
COE is pretty easy to renew via CFARS. The key is to remember to avoid having your password expire (it expires every 90 days).
__________________
David
Reply With Quote
  #1617  
Old 09-12-2022, 8:14 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can now confirm the Appellee received an extension of time that wasn't reported. Appellee's brief is due September 22nd
Reply With Quote
  #1618  
Old 09-13-2022, 3:36 AM
swiftone swiftone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 841
iTrader: 286 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfhondapilot View Post
COE is pretty easy to renew via CFARS. The key is to remember to avoid having your password expire (it expires every 90 days).
Not to derail this thread any more, but logging into CFARS was not the problem. I was logged in to CFARS and when I started the renewal process it claimed they could not find a COE assocated to my information. This is when I had a printed out copy sitting right in front of me.

This was maybe my third renewal - I am pretty confident with how CFARS works.

If you are really, really interested I have screen shots of everything and copied/reponses of my emails.

This is EXACTLY the same thing happening to my shoting partner.
Reply With Quote
  #1619  
Old 09-22-2022, 4:19 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...ntal_Brief.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #1620  
Old 09-22-2022, 4:50 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,639
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I was thinking the government may not provide any history at all. If they provide history they may doom all background checks including for firearms themselves.

In Heller they said "conditions and qualifications in the commercial sale of arms", but what are the conditions and qualification, is it background checks or something else, I don't know. If they provide no history, which they haven't yet, I would suspect it's not background checks.
Reply With Quote
  #1621  
Old 09-22-2022, 5:09 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 1,563
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What happens next? Someone in the know please explain where it goes from here.
Reply With Quote
  #1622  
Old 09-22-2022, 5:36 PM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 97
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't meet that "in the know" part, but I believe the three judge panel now has a choice to rule on this case as it stands...or remand it back down to Benitez.

I am predicting they will rule on it since it is a conservative majority and this is a straight forward case post-Bruen. It will likely be struck down.

Then we can watch the en banc stupidity in action!
Reply With Quote
  #1623  
Old 09-22-2022, 5:42 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Appellee's Brief
"The state has thus had more than ample opportunity in both the district court and this court to produce whatever historical evidence it can muster to try to "demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation"... Yet when given a third chance by the Court to explain why it should prevail under a standard that all now agree focuses on historical tradition, the state instead opted to willingly forfeit any argument on that case-dispositive issue-- after securing a two-week extension and with almost 4,000 words to spare its brief, no less
OOF got'em
Reply With Quote
  #1624  
Old 09-22-2022, 6:28 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiuJitsu View Post
I don't meet that "in the know" part, but I believe the three judge panel now has a choice to rule on this case as it stands...or remand it back down to Benitez.

I am predicting they will rule on it since it is a conservative majority and this is a straight forward case post-Bruen. It will likely be struck down.

Then we can watch the en banc stupidity in action!
Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
What happens next? Someone in the know please explain where it goes from here.
What happens next is the defendant-appellee(The state of California) has 21 days to file an optional reply brief. After that the panel will reconvene and decide what to do in the case. They could remand, which I find unlikely given the extended timeline they gave both parties and have not remanded. They could side with the plaintiffs, either by upholding Benitez's original ruling or applying Heller/Bruen themselves. I am of the mind the latter is the likely option. The panel is Bumatay, Watford, and Parker Jr. Bumatay is absolutely not going to vote for remand. Watford is GWB appointee and seemed to be on our side in oral arguments anyway. Parker Jr. is a democrat appointee and I cannot see him voting for anything but remand. It all comes down to Watford in my eyes.
Reply With Quote
  #1625  
Old 09-22-2022, 6:56 PM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 97
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think the real question here is what will CA and the 9th Circuit do if this law is struck down here at the three judge panel. En banc panel? Leave it and accept defeat?

History shows the 9th always overturning pro-2A rulings with en banc panels. But in this case if they actually follow precedent and use the clear Bruen test that SCOTUS requires then it's hard to see this being likely to succeed - even for the 9th Circus.
Reply With Quote
  #1626  
Old 09-22-2022, 7:25 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiuJitsu View Post
I think the real question here is what will CA and the 9th Circuit do if this law is struck down here at the three judge panel. En banc panel? Leave it and accept defeat?

History shows the 9th always overturning pro-2A rulings with en banc panels. But in this case if they actually follow precedent and use the clear Bruen test that SCOTUS requires then it's hard to see this being likely to succeed - even for the 9th Circus.

If they overturn this case by either by ignoring Bruen, declaring ammo purchases outside the 2nd amendment, or by declaring that there were historical analogies that uphold the ammo regulations I donít think thereís any way SCOTUS doesnít grant cert. The courtís composition would have to change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #1627  
Old 09-23-2022, 7:02 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,139
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
If they overturn this case by either by ignoring Bruen, declaring ammo purchases outside the 2nd amendment, or by declaring that there were historical analogies that uphold the ammo regulations I donít think thereís any way SCOTUS doesnít grant cert. The courtís composition would have to change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It wouldn't require much thought to find analogies to other consumer goods which the State has traditionally regulated at the point of sale even back in the days of ratification.

The 64 dollar question is whether those State regulations on sale applied to consumer goods which are subject to the enshrined guarantees of Constitutional Rights. If yes, then there is a historical analog. If no, then there isn't.

It would be up to the court to determine the legitimacy of any examples as analogous to ammo purchase laws. IF the court says not, then we could see the 9th attempt to en banc that decision by disagreeing and saying that consumer regulation is an analogous historical tradition.

This ain't over.
__________________
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!

My Utubery
Reply With Quote
  #1628  
Old 09-23-2022, 11:19 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
It wouldn't require much thought to find analogies to other consumer goods which the State has traditionally regulated at the point of sale even back in the days of ratification.

The 64 dollar question is whether those State regulations on sale applied to consumer goods which are subject to the enshrined guarantees of Constitutional Rights. If yes, then there is a historical analog. If no, then there isn't.

It would be up to the court to determine the legitimacy of any examples as analogous to ammo purchase laws. IF the court says not, then we could see the 9th attempt to en banc that decision by disagreeing and saying that consumer regulation is an analogous historical tradition.

This ain't over.
Bruen does not analogize to other amendment's historical analogies. The burden is on the government to prove through historical analysis that there were firearms regulations representative of a broad national tradition of firearm regulation of that type at the time of the founding. That is why the majority went through examples of past regulations before and after the 2nd amendment. Can judges lie like the SJ insurance judge did with surety laws? Sure they can, but that can only go so far before they're overturned.
Reply With Quote
  #1629  
Old 09-23-2022, 5:06 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,821
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
It wouldn't require much thought to find analogies to other consumer goods which the State has traditionally regulated at the point of sale even back in the days of ratification.

The 64 dollar question is whether those State regulations on sale applied to consumer goods which are subject to the enshrined guarantees of Constitutional Rights. If yes, then there is a historical analog. If no, then there isn't.

It would be up to the court to determine the legitimacy of any examples as analogous to ammo purchase laws. IF the court says not, then we could see the 9th attempt to en banc that decision by disagreeing and saying that consumer regulation is an analogous historical tradition.

This ain't over.
I have a bare-bones view.

The issue is ammo sales regulation. The analogies would then seem to require government control of the sale of powder and ball through identified and approved vendors responsible for buyer identification and recordation of the type of ammunition purchase and a governmental approval of the sale.

Good luck.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.Ē
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #1630  
Old 09-24-2022, 6:02 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,139
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
I have a bare-bones view.

The issue is ammo sales regulation. The analogies would then seem to require government control of the sale of powder and ball through identified and approved vendors responsible for buyer identification and recordation of the type of ammunition purchase and a governmental approval of the sale.

Good luck.
This is 1 viewpoint. There are other possible viewpoints as well. Which means that in any disagreement over which is correct, one of the parties is going to be disappointed that their viewpoint wasn't the one the court agreed with.

Failing to prepare a counter argument to opposing views is usually poor advocacy and often becomes a losing strategy.
__________________
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!

My Utubery
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 1:56 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical