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 04-26-2018, 12:28 PM
MCubeiro's Avatar
MCubeiro MCubeiro is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 95
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Rhode v. Becerra (Challenge to CA Ammo Sales) - ORAL ARGS at 9th 11-9-2020

STATUS - newest events at the top.
Michel & Associates case link: https://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/

Court of Appeals Case No.: 20-55437

District Court Case No.: 3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB

9th Circuit Case: 20-55437, 06/12/2020

8-30-2020 Oral arguments at 9th Circuit 11-9-2020

7-31-20 Appellees' answering brief https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ring-Brief.pdf

6-12-20 Appellant's (state) opening brief to the 9th - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ning-Brief.pdf
Quote:
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether the district court erred in holding that plaintiffs had
established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that
California’s ammunition background check laws, which, in most cases,
require a small fee and short wait to purchase ammunition, violate the
Second Amendment.

2. Whether the district court erred in holding that plaintiffs had
established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that
California’s laws requiring (A) ammunition transactions to take place in
face-to-face transactions and (B) residents bringing ammunition in the State
to deliver that ammunition to a licensed vendor for processing in a face-toface
transaction, violate the dormant Commerce Clause.

3. Whether the district court erred in holding that the burden
plaintiffs experience—a short wait and a small fee to purchase
ammunition—outweighs California’s interest in continuing to prevent
violent felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and other prohibit people from
purchasing ammunition.
5-14-20 // Librarian

9th grants the stay of the preliminary injunction, resolving the earlier 'administrative' stay
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...71335.68.0.pdf


4-24-20 // Librarian

9th grants the stay - https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...71335.66.0.pdf This one was 'administrative', no merits evaluated.

Becerra appeals to the 9th for a stay.

Judge Benitez denies the stay - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...tn-to-Stay.pdf

Much to anyone's surprise (/sarcasm) Becerra files for a stay - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...anting-MPI.pdf


4-23-20 // Librarian

Injunction - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...anting-MPI.pdf
Quote:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents,
servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and
federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction
order or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from
implementing or enforcing the ammunition sales background check
provisions found in California Penal Code §§ 30370(a) through (d) and
30352, and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in
§§ 30312(a) and (b), and 30314(a) as well as the criminal enforcement of
California Penal Code §§ 30365, 30312(d) and 30314(c).

2. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra shall provide forthwith, by
personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law
enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing
the enjoined statute. Within 10 days, the government shall file a
declaration establishing proof of such notice. Alternatively, the parties
may file a stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 23, 2020
NOTE WELL it is only the specified sections (I embedded links to the code) that are enjoined.



=========================== 2018 ============================
For immediate release:

CRPA LEGAL TEAM FILES FEDERAL LAWSUIT
CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA’S AMMUNITION SALE RESTRICTIONS

On Thursday, April 26, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, working with the experts and legal scholars at the NRA, filed an important lawsuit challenging California’s restrictions regarding the sale or transfer of ammunition. These restrictions, enacted in 2016 as part of the “Gunmageddon” bills and Proposition 63, require all ammunition sales and transfers to be conducted via face-to-face transactions at California licensed firearm dealers or licensed ammunition vendors. And beginning July 1, 2019, all ammunition purchasers will be required to pass a background check before taking delivery of any ammunition.

Leading the lawsuit is Kim Rhode, a six-time Olympic medal winner who uses specialized ammunition approved by the International Shooting Sport Federation during the competitions she participates in. Joining her are several other law-abiding California gun owners and the following out of state businesses who can no longer ship ammunition directly to their California customers:
  • Able’s Sporting, Inc. (also known as “Able Ammo”)- Located in Huntsville, TX, Able Ammo specializes in discount hunting supplies, shooting supplies, hunting firearms, discount ammunition, and other firearm related accessories. Visit their website by clicking here.
  • Ammunition Depot- Located in Boca Raton, FL, Ammunition Depot was founded by freedom-loving Americans who know that 1) It is every American’s right and responsibility to defend themselves, their family, and country; and, 2) without ammunition, none of that is possible. Visit their website by clicking here.
  • Sam’s Shooters Emporium- Located in Lake Havasu City, AZ (just outside of California), Sam’s Shooters Emporium celebrated 20 years of business as the largest indoor shooting range in Arizona. The owners of Sam’s Shooters Emporium, Sam Scarmardo and his wife, are dedicated supporters of the Second Amendment and both NRA Life Members. Visit their website by clicking here.

The lawsuit, titled Rhode v. Becerra, challenges the California’s new ammunition sales restrictions as a violation of the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit also challenges the restrictions as being preempted by the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act.

The filing of Rhode marks the fourth lawsuit filed challenging the provisions of Proposition 63 and the other “Gunmageddon” gun control bills. Once such lawsuit, titled Duncan v. Becerra, has already succeeded in obtaining an important injunction against Proposition 63’s ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The other two lawsuits, titled Rupp v. Becerra and Villanueva v. Becerra (both of which challenge California’s “assault weapon” restrictions and registration requirements), are also seeking injunctions while those lawsuits are pending.

Help Us Protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

NRA and CRPA are not standing idly by as California’s new firearm restrictions begin to take effect, but WE NEED YOU to help us turn the tide. CRPA’s Grassroots (GO) project needs individuals to be the voices for the right to keep and bear arms in local communities. To learn more about how you can help in these efforts, visit https://www.crpa.org/programs/volunteers-grassroots/ or send an email to volunteer@crpa.org.

To stay informed on the Rhode case, as well as the other “Gunmageddon” lawsuits and other important Second Amendment issues here in California and throughout the nation, make sure you are subscribed to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And be sure to visit the NRA-ILA California dedicated webpage at www.StandAndFightCalifornia.com and the newly redesigned CRPA website at www.CRPA.org.
__________________


NRA Certified Instructor- Pistol, Rifle, PPITH, PPOTH, Metallic Cartridge Reloading, Home Firearm Safety, Refuse to be a Victim
NRA Range Safety Officer

NRA Patriot Life Member - Benefactor Level
CRPA Life Member
CGN/CGSSA Contributor

Last edited by Librarian; 08-31-2020 at 9:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-26-2018, 12:31 PM
Maltese Falcon's Avatar
Maltese Falcon Maltese Falcon is offline
Ordo Militaris Templi
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 6,109
iTrader: 79 / 100%
Default

Good deal, thanks for the update. Now if we can get injunctions for all of them...

.
__________________
The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded. Charles-Louis de Secondat (1689-1755) Baron de Montesquieu


In America, freedom and justice have always come from the ballot box, the jury box, and when that fails, the cartridge box.
Steve Symms, ex-U.S. Senator, Idaho

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-26-2018, 12:37 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey-elect
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,450
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCubeiro View Post
Joining her are [...] the following out of state businesses
Thank god someone in free America hasn't forgotten us
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-26-2018, 12:40 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,096
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

For the frequent critics, note that the suit seems to cover a broad front often omitted:
Quote:
The lawsuit, titled Rhode v. Becerra, challenges the California’s new ammunition sales restrictions as a violation of

the Second Amendment,
Commerce Clause, and
Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

The lawsuit also challenges the restrictions as being preempted by the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"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
Consider Samizdat; consider some reading material, such as this and that.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-26-2018, 12:41 PM
Frisco3Gun's Avatar
Frisco3Gun Frisco3Gun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 703
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Wahoo! Thanks for fighting the good fight!
__________________
God may have made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

Send me pics of your: Colt Detective Special, AMT Hardballer, pre-64 Winchester Model 70. I'm looking for them.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-26-2018, 2:00 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,756
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Awesome! Go get 'em, boys!

That's great that you got Kim Rhode on board with this!!
__________________
AW Reg. will be reopened Jan. '22 to those who weren't able to register by 7/2018. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-26-2018, 2:30 PM
Skip_Dog's Avatar
Skip_Dog Skip_Dog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 2,559
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Time for another donation. Thank you to all involved to at least fight the fight.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-26-2018, 3:08 PM
Phalanx20mm's Avatar
Phalanx20mm Phalanx20mm is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: America
Posts: 558
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Thank you for continuing to fight for our rights.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-26-2018, 3:11 PM
operavoice's Avatar
operavoice operavoice is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 463
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Go Kim!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-26-2018, 4:37 PM
KahrMan's Avatar
KahrMan KahrMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 462
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
For the frequent critics, note that the suit seems to cover a broad front often omitted:
Yep, glad they included the commerce clause.
__________________
My God, even the Conservatives are liberal in the messed up State
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-26-2018, 5:49 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gavin is reacting predictably...

Quote:
...Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is running for governor, defended his initiative and vowed to fight the NRA lawsuit.

“We wrote Proposition 63 on solid legal ground and principle: If you're a felon banned from possessing guns in California, then you should not be able to purchase the ammunition that makes a firearm deadly,” Newsom said in a statement. “California voters said loudly and clearly that guns and ammunition do not belong in the hands of dangerous individuals — but once again, the NRA has prioritized gun industry profits over the lives of law-abiding Californians.”
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:06 PM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Land of Oppression
Posts: 4,895
iTrader: 100 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Gavin is reacting predictably...
He is such a f%^king tool. I am gonna venture a guess and say that felons were banned, are still banned, and will continue to be banned even if the lawsuit is a win.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:11 PM
baddos's Avatar
baddos baddos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 297
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Californians also voted for prop 8 Newsom.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:25 PM
boogak's Avatar
boogak boogak is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: san francisco
Posts: 1,647
iTrader: 136 / 100%
Default

Where do I donate to?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:31 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 360
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I am wondering, do other states do this? A quick search says no. In MA, where I come from, you can order online from some places and if you buy in-person you just flash your license. No background check is required.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-26-2018, 8:16 PM
kinkarcana kinkarcana is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 55
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I understand its going to take a decent chunk of time for a ruling on this to come about, but would a favorable ruling(repeal of statute) on this also effect the current legislation that the state is trying to implement concerning firearm precursor parts or is the correlation not there being 1 is ammo while the other is and or could be a chunk of metal with the ability to become a firearm?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-26-2018, 9:12 PM
Battosai1 Battosai1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 217
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Gavin is reacting predictably...
Oooo please for the love of God, let California collapse in a fiery ball of flaming dog **** on Gavin Newscums watch.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-26-2018, 9:12 PM
lordmorgul's Avatar
lordmorgul lordmorgul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: DFW area Texas, previously LA County - Lancaster
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Gavin is reacting predictably...


This guy is such a shameless liar. Anyone with a felony was already prohibited before this law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, SAF / CRPA / FPC member and supporter, USCCA Member
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-27-2018, 6:30 AM
Skip_Dog's Avatar
Skip_Dog Skip_Dog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 2,559
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmorgul View Post
This guy is such a shameless liar. Anyone with a felony was already prohibited before this law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, SAF / CRPA / FPC member and supporter, USCCA Member
And so only a Ca COE should be good enough for online shipments. Proves we are Ca legal. No need for Fed 03FFL for ammo. He is straight up Bull Sh!7.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-27-2018, 11:52 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,454
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I sooo hope this litigation is successful (another way of saying that I am subscribed to this thread)!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-28-2018, 1:21 PM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: GP, OR, State of Jefferson
Posts: 2,161
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmorgul View Post
This guy is such a shameless liar. Anyone with a felony was already prohibited before this law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, SAF / CRPA / FPC member and supporter, USCCA Member
Yep. He's a snake.
__________________
Quote:
"If the American people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the law then they will conclude that neither are they." - Michael Cannon, Cato Inst. 2014
_________________________________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-28-2018, 9:07 PM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Utah (CA refugee)
Posts: 747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This is ****ing amazing... I wish the courts moved faster on things like this.
__________________
My wife and I started an Amazon business ...Random product I know

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-28-2018, 9:20 PM
superdave50 superdave50 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Central valley
Posts: 819
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

if bgc's can't prevent felons from purchasing firearms, how could they prevent ammo purchases?

logic is some crazy stuff...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-28-2018, 9:37 PM
denpython denpython is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,560
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Gavin is anything but a "law abiding citizen".
Thanks CRPA and NRA!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-29-2018, 9:09 PM
Haplo's Avatar
Haplo Haplo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 703
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Great job guys!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-30-2018, 8:43 AM
SWalt's Avatar
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

tag
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-01-2018, 7:05 AM
KahrMan's Avatar
KahrMan KahrMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 462
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by superdave50 View Post
if bgc's can't prevent felons from purchasing firearms, how could they prevent ammo purchases?

logic is some crazy stuff...
Its not about criminals, its about disarming the law abiding public so they can not resist the will of the overlords.
__________________
My God, even the Conservatives are liberal in the messed up State
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-11-2018, 9:08 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,367
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

\ Benitez got assigned to this case that is the same judge that granted the injunction in the magazine case. The case was originally assigned to a Democrat appointee so this is great news.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/..._Becerra_et_al

Last edited by wolfwood; 05-11-2018 at 9:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-11-2018, 10:02 AM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,272
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
\ Benitez got assigned to this case that is the same judge that granted the injunction in the magazine case. The case was originally assigned to a Democrat appointee so this is great news.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/..._Becerra_et_al
What luck😁
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-11-2018, 11:08 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,367
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I' ve been working in the federal court system for awhile and I doubt luck has much to do with it. Judges on both sides tend to find a way on the cases they like.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-11-2018, 11:23 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,756
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Sounds like we pretty much know where this case is going then the question is, what happens when the state inevitably appeals it.
__________________
AW Reg. will be reopened Jan. '22 to those who weren't able to register by 7/2018. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-12-2018, 3:27 PM
coryhenry's Avatar
coryhenry coryhenry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

I'm just hoping this moves more quickly!!
__________________
Cory

"Every man dies, not every man really lives!"

Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-12-2018, 4:02 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,256
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good news
__________________
One life so don't blow it......Always die with your boots on!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-13-2018, 6:03 PM
FISHNFRANK FISHNFRANK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fullerton/Palomar Mtn
Posts: 1,113
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Well I’ll donate but we can guess how it’s going to go; we get a win in superior court, which is then overturned by the 9th circuit on appeal...then the Supreme Court refuses cert...4-6 years down the road. We’re all much older....
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-13-2018, 7:12 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,756
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FISHNFRANK View Post
Well I’ll donate but we can guess how it’s going to go; we get a win in superior court, which is then overturned by the 9th circuit on appeal...then the Supreme Court refuses cert...4-6 years down the road. We’re all much older....
There's a not-zero chance that we win at the 9th, a la Peruta, and then it doesn't go en banc (unlike Peruta), and then it won't matter that scotus doesn't hear it. We've already won 50% of the battle by getting a pro-2a judge at Superior Court, if we get a pro-2a 3-judge panel in the 9th then there's a fair chance we win. It can absolutely happen... Even with the odds stacked against us there's a solid 40% chance we could get a win here.
__________________
AW Reg. will be reopened Jan. '22 to those who weren't able to register by 7/2018. We don't know what that means for firearms made compliant when reg. failed or if they can or must be converted to AW configuration before registering. There's a moratorium on prosecutions for possession of AWs which were eligible for registration, but AWs acquired after 2016 can still be prosecuted!
Extremely important note: DON'T register anything acquired after 2016!!!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-13-2018, 7:45 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,454
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
There's a not-zero chance that we win at the 9th, a la Peruta, and then it doesn't go en banc (unlike Peruta), and then it won't matter that scotus doesn't hear it. We've already won 50% of the battle by getting a pro-2a judge at Superior Court, if we get a pro-2a 3-judge panel in the 9th then there's a fair chance we win. It can absolutely happen... Even with the odds stacked against us there's a solid 40% chance we could get a win here.
Um... isn't the case in U.S. District Court (out of state litigants)?

Edit: Separately, I think the non-2A causes of action improve the chances for a favorable outcome for Internet ammunition purchasers. It would be one thing if the case was about a pure 2A matter. Internet ammunition purchases (especially with a sympathetic litigant such as Kim Rhode) is not the same as trying to reverse an AW ban. Rhode can make a bread-and-butter argument that the ban negatively impacts her ability to practice and thus, her ability compete at the level she competes at.

Call me an optimist, but I think the chances of a favorable outcome with this case are north of 50%.

Last edited by aBrowningfan; 05-13-2018 at 7:53 PM.. Reason: See Edit: above
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-14-2018, 10:37 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,036
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

IANAL and certainly not a Federal appellate lawyer. But I was SO pleased to see a lawyer for our side appear to kick ***. Direct answers to direct questions (as opposed to all sorts of gymnastics and clearly pissing off judges by blathering on without ever addressing the question asked). Opposing counsel looked like an ambulance chasing Poindexter to me.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-14-2018, 9:17 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 759
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wonder what would happen with an out of state plaintiff, outside of the Ninth Circuit, such as a big online ammo seller, challenging on interstate commerce clause grounds. Could they sue in their circuit and allow us a more reasonable appeal venue?
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-14-2018, 9:23 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,454
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
I wonder what would happen with an out of state plaintiff, outside of the Ninth Circuit, such as a big online ammo seller, challenging on interstate commerce clause grounds. Could they sue in their circuit and allow us a more reasonable appeal venue?
I think you have to file suit where the defendant is located, which is CA9. Further, you have CA plaintiffs (like Kim Rhode).
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-14-2018, 9:38 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 759
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
I think you have to file suit where the defendant is located, which is CA9. Further, you have CA plaintiffs (like Kim Rhode).
I understand the first part. I was wondering about that, and if true, your answer settles the issue. As far as the second goes, I was speculating about a hypothetical suit, with only out of 9th district plaintiffs, tailored to get us a non-9th appeals process
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
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 3:12 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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