Renna v Bonta - US Dist Ct So Cal, 11/2020 (Roster: PI granted and stayed 3-31-23)

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Judges become more sensible the higher they go. Circuit courts will become a bit gunshy after a while and not issue stays after repeated SCOTUS rulings.

Based on what? The circuit courts have shown zero interest in complying with SCOTUS.

Due to the volume of cases, SCOTUS?s influence is basically zero. Circuit courts do what they want. It took 15 years for SCOTUS to address interest balancing and the courts are still doing it. Lower courts know SCOTUS has no mechanism for defending its rulings. The PIs are immediately slapped down by judges that disagree with Heller and Bruen because they ultimately have the power. Easterbrook didn?t even bother to allow the plaintiffs to submit briefs before he stayed the PI. You have sitting congressmen basically saying they will have to ignore SCOTUS, if SCOTUS strikes down AWBs.

The reality is SCOTUS has lost control over gun rights to the circuit courts and to the states. They have allowed lower courts and states to dismiss their authority. It?s almost certain that states will pass revised AWBs under a new name and the whole cycle will repeat.

Sure, some district court judges will comply with Bruen but we have seen more than a few that won?t. The circuit courts have shown zero interest in Bruen.

Until SCOTUS realizes they have lost control, it doesn?t matter.

[SpudmanWP]

SCOTUS cannot do anything about a case until it gets to them and that has only happened twice post-Bruen.
In both instances, SCOTUS responded in a way that exceeded the norm, first by directing the Circuit to expedite "or else", and second by instructing the State to respond to a PI request.
That 2nd instance has yet to conclude and the latest is that ACB brought the issue to the whole court last Thursday.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

SCOTUS cannot do anything about a case until it gets to them and that has only happened twice post-Bruen.
In both instances, SCOTUS responded in a way that exceeded the norm, first by directing the Circuit to expedite "or else", and second by instructing the State to respond to a PI request.
That 2nd instance has yet to conclude and the latest is that ACB brought the issue to the whole court last Thursday.

I get it but that?s why I think SCOTUS has to respond to Naperville. They can?t allow this to continue, or they are just endorsing the chaos.

[SpudmanWP]

ACB brought the request to the whole court on Thursday of last week (as is customary).
Hopefully, we'll have an order this week.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

ACB brought the request to the whole court on Thursday of last week (as is customary).

How do you know this?

[SpudmanWP]

I'll have to dig up the timeline, but a 2A lawyer on YT mentioned it.

Oddly enough, SCOTUBlog does not have it listed.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...y-docket-2022/

Thursday was a scheduled day for non-argument sessions and conferences.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...endar_rev1.pdf

[darkwater34]

This is good news.

[johnireland]

The SCOTUS is suffering from terminal ED when it comes to gun rights and the second amendment.

[fabularny]

Scotus is in denial that they're dealing with rogue states. Soon as they accept this, the sooner they can do what's necessary, up to and including sending the national guard to drag them to jail.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by fabularny

Scotus is in denial that they're dealing with rogue states. Soon as they accept this, the sooner they can do what's necessary, up to and including sending the national guard to drag them to jail.

Please stop. SCOTUS has no control over National Guard forces.

[darkwater34]

It is real s@#$ show, with Kray in charge of FBI running rough shod on ATF and DOJ making rules for prosecutors to follow and be and bending if not breaking laws to get people prosecuted for more than single charge. It is a good thing SCOTUS is putting some brakes on the ATF, EPA and the DOC. Things are starting to change but it will either take the current administration to get on board with SCOTUS or we will have to wait for the administration to change come election day.. We can only hope we get a President with a Trump like agenda.

[WithinReason]

We can hope for a president that supports the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

[homelessdude]

So, probably not a democrap.

[AlmostHeaven]

All Democrats are tyrants on guns.

Some Republicans are tyrants on guns.

Until there is some sort of alternative electoral system available such as ranked-choice voting, there really isn't much choice when going to the ballot box.

[ronlglock]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

All Democrats are tyrants on guns.

Some Republicans are tyrants on guns.

Until there is some sort of alternative electoral system available such as ranked-choice voting, there really isn't much choice when going to the ballot box.

ROFL! Ranked Choice voting means that no one gets who they want. Check out the stories about how Chesa Boudin got elected, and the Oakland Cluster.

[AlmostHeaven]

Ranked-choice voting got me Glenn Youngkin, the first Republican governor in Virginia since 2009, so it's a mixed bag.

It's not the voting method's fault California is so f*cked up it will produce a walking piece of manure no matter what system is used.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

Ranked-choice voting got me Glenn Youngkin, the first Republican governor in Virginia since 2009, so it's a mixed bag.

It's not the voting method's fault California is so f*cked up it will produce a walking piece of manure no matter what system is used.

Which is why many of us no longer reside there.

[SpudmanWP]

Ranked choice is nothing more than a runoff election and we've been doing those for decades just fine.

The eventual winner, in either case, will need at least 50% +1 to win.
There may be educational barriers to overcome, but that is on us to do.

[WithinReason]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

...There may be educational barriers to overcome, but that is on us to do.

Agreed.

[abinsinia]

Submitted (ECF) Answering Brief for review. Submitted by Appellees Richard Bailey, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Clint Freeman, Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Danielle Jaymes, John Klier, Robert Macomber, North County Shooting Center, Inc., Ryan Peterson, John Phillips, Cheryl Prince, Darin Prince, PWGG, L.P., Lana Rae Renna, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Laura Schwartz, Michael Schwartz, Second Amendment Foundation, Justin Smith and Hannah Spousta. Date of service: 06/09/2023. [12732615] [23-55367] (Benbrook, Bradley) [Entered: 06/09/2023 12:20 PM]

Response from FPC

[SpudmanWP]

Awesome read.

[homelessdude]

Are there any educated guesses as to when the nineth will rule on the PI. What is the usual time frame? Please no 2 weeks. I'm looking for a reasoned opinion.

[ritter]

That was a great response. Damn.

[WithinReason]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Awesome read.

Agreed.

[32spoke]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Awesome read.

Someone does not want to hear the state?s attempt to repeat the same failed argument, as it is a waste of everyone?s time.

[BlessedHunter]

I've been pretty active about keeping up with the status of each of our cases but it's become increasingly convoluted.

The district court issued a PI for the entirety of the roster.

"Because the State is unable to show the UHA’s chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and microstamping requirements are consistent with the Nation’s historical arms regulations, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the State’s enforcement of those three provisions, which operate to prohibit the commercial sale of these arms, as well as the three-for-one roster removal provision, which depends on the enforceability of those provisions"

The state requested an immediate stay of the PI pending appeal to the 9th in their brief. "Defendants further contend that this Court’s Amended Order (ECF No. 81) already made clear enforcement of the preliminary injunction as to the CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one provisions are stayed pending resolution of an appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

This is now at the 9th circuit but the case has not had a final order written at the district level, correct?

So what's currently being briefed (the one submitted on 6/9) is arguing whether the stay should be lifted or not?

[Luciansulla]

Correct, this is at the appeals court for the PI. The actual trial at the district court has yet to take place.

[abinsinia]

Notice of Oral Argument on Wednesday, August 23, 2023 - 09:30 A.M. - Courtroom 1 - Scheduled Location: Pasadena CA.
The hearing time is the local time zone at the scheduled hearing location.

View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here.

NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you may have the option to appear in person at the Courthouse or remotely by video. Anyone appearing in person must review and comply with our Protocols for In Person Hearings, available here. At this time, an election to appear remotely by video will not require a motion. The court expects and supports the fact that some attorneys and some judges will continue to appear remotely. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you directly at least two weeks before the set argument date to review any requirements for in person appearance or to make any necessary arrangements for remote appearance.

Please note however that if you do elect to appear remotely, the court strongly prefers video over telephone appearance. Therefore, if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to file a motion requesting permission to do so.

Be sure to review the GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing, including when to be available (30 minutes before the hearing time) and when and how to submit additional citations (filing electronically as far in advance of the hearing as possible).

If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in CM/ECF no later than 28 days before Wednesday, August 23, 2023. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice.[12733181]. [23-55367] (KS) [Entered: 06/11/2023 06:09 AM]

From the court of appeals docket,

Sunday filing.

It appears they have combined Renna and Boland into the Boland panel. This filing also appeared on the Boland docket.

[abinsinia]

Sent letter to Amici Curiae Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, District of Columbia, Everytown for Gun Safety, Appellants Rob Bonta, Allison Mendoza and Appellees Richard Bailey, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Clint Freeman, Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Danielle Jaymes, John Klier, Robert Macomber, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., Ryan Peterson, John Phillips, Cheryl Prince, Darin Prince, Lana Rae Renna, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Laura Schwartz, Michael Schwartz, Second Amendment Foundation, Justin Smith and Hannah Spousta re: Notice of Related Cases. [12733658] (CSR) [Entered: 06/12/2023 11:40 AM]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43449.35.0.pdf

Is it normal for the court to define related cases without the attorney's involvement ?

[JiuJitsu]

So I understand that motions panels in the 9th are ?randomly? assigned each month. Does that mean the same panel that put the stay on these roster cases will be the one hearing the oral arguments? Or is a new panel assigned?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

So I understand that motions panels in the 9th are ?randomly? assigned each month. Does that mean the same panel that put the stay on these roster cases will be the one hearing the oral arguments? Or is a new panel assigned?

I have the same question because it appears Renna is going to the motions panel with Boland.

I thought Renna is just a regular appeal of the preliminary injunction because the PI if already stayed.

It appears it will be different judges .. According to the Rhode case docket,
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...e-v-rob-bonta/

The initial emergency stay request was one set of judges, but ruling was another set of judges.

[JiuJitsu]

And if both Renna and Boland are going to be combined in the same day of oral arguments, possibly with the same panel that stayed them, that could mean both roster PI’s are doomed to be in front of a blatantly anti-2A kangaroo court that day.

Boy that sounds promising. We would TOTALLY get a fair hearing for these PI’s. [shakes head]

Edit: Sounds like we get a different set of judges, which is cool. Let’s hope they are fair and reasonable.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

Let?s hope they are fair and reasonable.

Giggle snort. I guess it could happen.

[Sgt Raven]

On Motions vs Merits Panels, things have changed since Judges appointed by Trump changed the makeup of the 9th.



IIRC, they are not the same three Judges.

The Motions Panel is appointed for a thirty day period.

The Merits Panel is picked at random.



https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/ninth-ci...lliam-yeatman/

[abinsinia]

Whoever they are it's seems likely they merged the two cases. I don't know if that tells us anything or not.

[BlessedHunter]

CA filed their reply brief..........not a few sentences in you get this.

"With respect to the textual analysis, it is Plaintiffs? burden to establish that the
Second Amendment?s plain text covers their proposed course of conduct".

Someone with a judicial background please explain to me how this makes sense.

Bruen clearly states "We hold that when the Second Amend-
ment?s plain text covers an individual?s conduct, the Consti-
tution presumptively protects that conduct".

Are they trying to say that plaintiffs need to prove the roster falls under the 2A?.........

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by BlessedHunter

CA filed their reply brief..........not a few sentences in you get this.

"With respect to the textual analysis, it is Plaintiffs' burden to establish that the
Second Amendment's plain text covers their proposed course of conduct".

Someone with a judicial background please explain to me how this makes sense.

Bruen clearly states "We hold that when the Second Amend-
ment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Consti-
tution presumptively protects that conduct".

Are they trying to say that plaintiffs need to prove the roster falls under the 2A?.........

The state, recognizing the difficulty of meeting the burden of needing to present relevant historical analogues to justify the challenged gun regulation, is attempting to argue that the issue at hand falls outside the scope of the "plain text" of the Second Amendment.

This is nothing but an utterly intellectually bankrupt argument.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

This is nothing but an utterly intellectually bankrupt argument.

Nothing new for these *******s. It just comes way too naturally for them.

[Dvrjon]

Near as I can tell:

The district court issued a PI in favor of the Plaintiffs. The State is challenging the PI on the allegation that it wasn?t properly founded. Their claim is that the evaluation of the levying of the injunction failed to show the Plaintiff?s likelihood of success. Paragraph 4 of this This Yale Article (Thanks, Sgt. Raven) discusses the injunction/stay requirements.

In weighing stay requests, motions panels apply the Nken v. Holder framework, which requires the movant to demonstrate:

-a strong likelihood of success on the merits;
-a showing of irreparable harm;
-the balance of the equities favors a stay; and,
-the public interest favors a stay.

After resolution of the government’s stay request, the (typical) next step in these controversies is for the government to appeal the district court’s PI before a three-judge *merits* panel of the Ninth Circuit. For these PI appeals, CA9 reviews district courts for abuse of discretion. The district court’s decision making, in turn, is judged against the Winter v. NRDC framework for granting injunctive relief. Under Winter, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish:

-likelihood of success on the merits;
-a showing of irreparable harm;
-the balance of equities favors a PI; and,
-the public interest favors a PI.

For both the Nken and Winter frameworks, note that the leading factor is the likelihood of a party?s success on the merits.

So, for stays/injunctions, the Movant must carry a burden of likelihood of success on the merits at trial. In that regard,

"With respect to the textual analysis, it is Plaintiffs' burden to establish that the Second Amendment's plain text covers their proposed course of conduct".

Bruen clearly states "We hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct".

Plaintiffs had to present information which showed that the plain text covers the course of conduct so the Bruen admonition (“We hold that WHEN”) can be applied.

At trial, the SCOTUS guidelines engage and the State must defend against the allegation of infringement on a Right.

[JiuJitsu]

CA’s PI response brief was intellectually dishonest as usual. And the state just clings to interest balancing and disingenuous public safety pleas over and over and over. They just cant help themselves, can they?

Commonsense gun safety! Protect the public! Yea, thats not how this works anymore. Try again.

I also just love how they keep referencing the Pena case which extensively and improperly relied upon the two-step method that Bruen now expressly forbids.