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
  #41  
Old 04-06-2020, 4:53 AM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 167
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
There does not appear to be a statewide order in effect for firearms and ammunition. Newsome has generally been precise in his public statements-often being careful to frame things as strong recommendations rather than “orders.” That could get the state excused from the lawsuit.
That is Newsom and Democrats nationwide being slimy to avoid accountability, and trying to frustrate the inevitable legal challenges in the courts. It's also why there are five or eight cases pending against them. It was an intentional decision to feign ignorance of responsibility. Look up the infamous "58 District Attourneys" letter from the Off List Lower days for another example where they intentionally tried to fragment accountability by "leaving it up to the Sheriffs" to decide if the Bill of Rights (or Department of Homeland Security findings) applies in their county.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=32967
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ibits-Q-Y1.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20071019...ters060220.PDF

Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklisted View Post
December 2005

... throughout the entire month of December (and later), the Department was calling and intimidating out of state manufacturers, suppliers, and dealers. They were given ominous warnings (over the phone, rarely in writing) about California's 58 district attorneys, and some were allegedly lied to. It is not clear whether it was agents, desk clerks, or attorneys that made these calls. Whether they were lied to or not, the strategy worked. Soon, it seemed that nobody wanted to deal with us. Even some dealers here were convinced that we were all going to jail.
Quote:
DOJ FFL Advisory Notice

(Although OLL have been found by law and the courts to be legal to sell in California) There are 58 district attorneys in California's 58 counties. They could (individually) elect to prosecute you for a felony.
This is extremely familiar in terms of tactics, unfamiliar in how it is being applied in a time under emergency powers. But as far as I am aware, the Bill of Rights doesn't cease to exist in bad times. I wish the government disenfranchising people of their rights through the implied use of force would be a crime, such as with the 58 DAs letter... or failing to protect them through the ambiguous affirmation of rights, such as Newsom now.

Last edited by Citizen One; 04-06-2020 at 5:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-06-2020, 1:25 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 409
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-06-2020, 2:43 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Free State
Posts: 252
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So as figured state is not part of this per judge. Additionally court thinks under intermediate scrutiny itís reasonable. Itís not strict scrutiny because theyíre not coming after your guns...
__________________
My Adventures
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-06-2020, 2:59 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 9,078
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
So as figured state is not part of this per judge. Additionally court thinks under intermediate scrutiny itís reasonable. Itís not strict scrutiny because theyíre not coming after your guns...
So according to the Obama appointee. It's OK to petty autocrats to deny your "2A RIGHT TO PURCHASE" a firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-06-2020, 8:55 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Free State
Posts: 252
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
So according to the Obama appointee. It's OK to petty autocrats to deny your "2A RIGHT TO PURCHASE" a firearm.


Yes, because those who own them are not impacted (their logic).

Remember though this was for a TRO. Lawsuit will go on, just wonít be ruled on anytime soon.
__________________
My Adventures
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-07-2020, 9:45 AM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 302
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Heller Two-Stepped again. That NY SCOTUS ruling can't come out soon enough.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-08-2020, 2:59 PM
WingDings's Avatar
WingDings WingDings is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: OC / LA
Posts: 1,117
iTrader: 139 / 100%
Default

https://freebeacon.com/courts/second...tore-closures/

Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-05-2021, 5:47 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 409
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Appellants' Opening Brief

Appellees' Answering Brief

FPC case page
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-19-2021, 7:59 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 409
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oral argument video

Panel: Kleinfeld, R. Nelson, VanDyke
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-21-2021, 7:44 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,318
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Oral argument video

Panel: Kleinfeld, R. Nelson, VanDyke
Defense got clobbered
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-20-2022, 12:48 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 409
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Opinion

Quote:
On the merits, the Los Angeles County Orders (Orders) both burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment and fail strict and intermediate scrutiny.
McDougall v. Ventura County opinion

Quote:
The Orders therefore wholly prevented law-abiding citizens in the County from realizing their right to keep and bear arms, both by prohibiting access to acquiring any firearm and ammunition, and barring practice at firing ranges with any firearms already owned. These blanket prohibitions on access and practice clearly burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment and fail under both strict and intermediate scrutiny. We therefore reverse and remand to the district court.

Last edited by FirearmFino; 01-20-2022 at 12:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-21-2022, 4:48 AM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Judge Van Dyke's concurring opinion, where he predicts what will happen en banc, is pretty funny. Well worth the read.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-21-2022, 6:16 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,735
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
Judge Van Dyke's concurring opinion, where he predicts what will happen en banc, is pretty funny. Well worth the read.
It's amusing, but also kinda disheartening, yet gratifying...

Quote:
I agree wholeheartedly with the majority opinion, which is not terribly surprising since I wrote it. But I write separately to make two additional points. The first is simply to predict what happens next. Iím not a prophet, but since this panel just enforced the Second Amendment, and this is the Ninth Circuit, this ruling will almost certainly face an en banc challenge. This prediction follows from the fact that this is always what happens when a three-judge panel upholds the Second Amendment in this circuit... Our circuit has ruled on dozens of Second Amendment cases, and without fail has ultimately blessed every gun regulation challenged, so we shouldnít expect anything less here...

...The complex weave of multi-prong analyses embedded into this framework provide numerous off-ramps for judges to uphold any gun-regulation in question without hardly breaking a sweat...

...Since our courtís Second Amendment intermediate scrutiny standard can reach any result one desires, I figure there is no reason why I shouldnít write an alternative draft opinion that will apply our test in a way more to the liking of the majority of our court. That way I can demonstrate just how easy it is to reach any desired conclusion under our current framework, and the majority of our court can get a jumpstart on calling this case en banc...
I see this as something akin to what Benetiz has been doing; i.e., highlighting the absurdity of what the 9th Circuit has been doing in relation to decisions on the 2nd Amendment. Amusing? Yes. Disheartening? Sure, that it is even viewed as 'necessary.' Gratifying? From the perspective that someone is putting it on the record and that someone has official weight.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-21-2022, 7:35 AM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
Former cabinetguy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a cage at the San Diego Zoo
Posts: 34,084
iTrader: 72 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonelar View Post
My hope is that LA residents remember this come election time. That sheriff has got tongo.

I donít know that it was his call, given Villanueva's preformance on LTC issuance, he seems fairly pro AII.

JMTC
__________________
Weíre ALL GOING TO DIE!

Canít somebody do something?!?!?!?!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-21-2022, 4:58 PM
lairdb lairdb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 152
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
Judge Van Dyke's concurring opinion, where he predicts what will happen en banc, is pretty funny. Well worth the read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It's amusing, but also kinda disheartening, yet gratifying...

I see this as something akin to what Benetiz has been doing; i.e., highlighting the absurdity of what the 9th Circuit has been doing in relation to decisions on the 2nd Amendment.
I dropped in to make sure this had been noticed -- this is some of the funniest stuff I've read in years. This is P.G. Wodehouse levels of funny in places. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...0/20-56220.pdf; Vandyke's concurrence starts on page 46 with this joyful opening:
Quote:
I agree wholeheartedly with the majority opinion, which is not terribly surprising since I wrote it.
Quote:
The complex weave of multi-prong analyses embedded into this framework provide numerous off-ramps for judges to uphold any gun-regulation in question without hardly breaking a sweat.
(Writing in the voice of the expected en banc judges: )
Quote:
We really like this “not unlimited” language from Heller, and cite it often and enthusiastically.
Quote:
Here’s the deal: Whenever we think the history helps us in upholding the challenged regulation, we’re happy to rely on it in step one of our test. [...] But most of the time the history either doesn’t help us uphold the gun regulation, is indeterminate, or is just really hard to evaluate. [...] But that’s okay, because the real beauty of our two-step test is its amazing flexibility at the various stages of step two in balancing the government’s asserted interest versus the claimed impact on the “core” of the Second Amendment.
Quote:
I know this sounds a lot like rational basis review. After all, if a government interest would be “achieved [more] effectively absent the [challenged] regulation,” it’s hard to see how that regulation would survive even rational basis scrutiny. But trust us, this is heightened scrutiny. So very heightened.


__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-21-2022, 9:41 PM
librarian72 librarian72 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 126
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Utterly squandered.

My prediction, no en-banc. The "emergency" is past and they'll let this go specifically to pull teeth on the anti-2A argument. Of course, given half the chance they will jump through hoops when the next emergency pops up to do whatever they want.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
US Circuit Courts of Appeal have no deadlines; they work on what they want, when they want. The 9th also seems sometimes to Make Stuff Up in their opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-28-2022, 4:05 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 409
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Motion for A 14-day Extension of Time for Filing Petition for Rehearing or, in the Alternative, Rehearing En Banc
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-08-2022, 10:54 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 409
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

McDougall v. County of Ventura:

Filed Order for PUBLICATION (MARY H. MURGUIA) Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion is vacated.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-08-2022, 11:00 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 689
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default McDougall, et al. v. County of Ventura, CA, et al.

The case involving covid lockdowns of gun stores has just been ordered en banc. The panel decision declaring the gun store shutdowns as violations of the second amendment is vacated. This was the case where Judge VanDyke famously wrote the 9thís en banc decision for them ahead of time.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1646764454


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-08-2022, 12:47 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
The case involving covid lockdowns of gun stores has just been ordered en banc. The panel decision declaring the gun store shutdowns as violations of the second amendment is vacated. This was the case where Judge VanDyke famously wrote the 9th’s en banc decision for them ahead of time.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1646764454



Yeah, it's very predictable at this point. I wonder if the democrate judges know how predictable they are.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 03-08-2022, 2:00 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,196
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
The case involving covid lockdowns of gun stores has just been ordered en banc. The panel decision declaring the gun store shutdowns as violations of the second amendment is vacated. This was the case where Judge VanDyke famously wrote the 9thís en banc decision for them ahead of time.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1646764454


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They probably granted en banc just to tell Judge Van Dyke how wrong he is about their method of review. Just too "insulting" to let it stand, even if it is true.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-11-2022, 5:11 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 409
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

McDougall v. Ventura County: Oral argument in this en banc case will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 22, 2022, in Courtroom Three of the Richard H. Chambers Courthouse, located at 125 South Grand Avenue in Pasadena, CA 91105.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-14-2022, 9:20 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,764
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
McDougall v. Ventura County: Oral argument in this en banc case will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 22, 2022
Is CA9 still going ahead with en banc orals on this date despite the imminent release of a major SCOTUS 2A opinion in NYSRPA?


Last edited by Paladin; 05-14-2022 at 9:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-14-2022, 3:03 PM
johncage johncage is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 340
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Yeah, it's very predictable at this point. I wonder if the democrate judges know how predictable they are.
>democrats

>self awareness

pick one.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-22-2022, 8:59 PM
johnireland johnireland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 255
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If the courts were going to defend the Second Amendment it would have happened at least fifty years ago. That it hasn't happened is proof that it will not happen in the future. Not until America is partitioned into two separate countries, will the courts, as described in the Constitution, be a place where citizens can seek justice, and get it. A study of the corruption of the courts and the legal system over the last 50 to 60 years is just another page in the leftwing assault on ever part of the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05-23-2022, 1:39 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,196
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Is CA9 still going ahead with en banc orals on this date despite the imminent release of a major SCOTUS 2A opinion in NYSRPA?

I would not be surprised if oral argument was taken off calendar and rescheduled if Bruen is decided before then in order to allow further briefing as to the standard of review.
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 5:25 PM.




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