Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: OLD THREAD

[canopis]

If the 9th Cir. overturns the lower court's decision, the case will be set to go to trial with Judge Benitez. Guess the outcome there.

Yes, but that might depend on the Ninth's ruling. For example, if they say that magazines aren't "arms" protected by the Second Amendment, then Judge Benitez would be bound to follow that.

[PMACA_MFG]

Who can over rule a stay from the 9th?

[thebowser]

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-04-Defendants-Response-to-Plaintiffs-Opp-to-Ex-Parte-to-Stay.pdf

[BPK]

If a stay is not in place by that time, Defendant, due to the urgency of this matter,will seek an emergency stay pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[thebowser]

[SwissFluCase]

Thus, the 85 page, ( yes 85 PAGE) ruling was done to make this as bullet proof as possible.
Watching how they try to wiggle out of this will be fun, yet sad.

This was the same tactic that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit used to entice SCOTUS to hear Heller, and it worked.

This ruling is a big deal just for this reason alone.

SwissFluCase

[wirenut6]

I don't think RTB will take a threat like that too kindly.

[92E2]

As pointed out earlier, the POS DOJ Basura is using PSA's statement submitted by the plaintiff to bolster their request for stay, but offers no rebuttals to any of the details in the plaintiff's response. Totally ignores all of them.

Shouldn't Basura have done his own work instead of having the plaintiff do it for him ?

In light of the new information presented by Plaintiffs, Defendant requests that the Court issue a stay of the Judgment pending appeal no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday, April 4.

If a stay is not in place by that time, Defendant, due to the urgency of this matter, will seek an emergency stay pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-04-Defendants-Response-to-Plaintiffs-Opp-to-Ex-Parte-to-Stay.pdf

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

From DOJ's latest filing:

In light of the new information presented by
Plaintiffs, Defendant requests that the Court issue a stay of the Judgment pending appeal no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday, April 4.

If a stay is not in place by that time, Defendant, due to the urgency of this
matter, will seek an emergency stay pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

[92E2]

From DOJ's latest filing:

In light of the new information presented by
Plaintiffs, Defendant requests that the Court issue a stay of the Judgment pending appeal no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday, April 4.

If a stay is not in place by that time, Defendant, due to the urgency of this
matter, will seek an emergency stay pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

Sean, why did the plaintiff do the DOJ's work for them instead of letting the DOJ burn their own clock, man hours and resources to get the information to support their own argument(s) ?

It appears that move was batting for the wrong team instead of using the clock to the benefit of the plaintiff.

[nagzul]

From DOJ's latest filing:

In light of the new information presented by
Plaintiffs, Defendant requests that the Court issue a stay of the Judgment pending appeal no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday, April 4.

If a stay is not in place by that time, Defendant, due to the urgency of this
matter, will seek an emergency stay pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

What is the time frame, as best you can guess, that the 9th can accept any appeal to them and rule?
Tomorrow?
Next week?
Do you guys get an opportunity to file a motion to deny the appeal?
Thanks for all you do, I hope the wallets are opening up to you guys.

[BAJ475]

Also note that this decision was regarding the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, granting that motion.

If the 9th Cir. overturns the lower court's decision, the case will be set to go to trial with Judge Benitez. Guess the outcome there. Then it can be appealed to the 9th again. Then to the US Supreme Court.

The AG said he will appeal. We expected that if he lost. But what do you think he will or could claim is a genuine dispute as to a material fact that the 9th Circus could rely upon to reverse? Heller did not mean what is said about not being able to ban arms commonly held by law abiding persons for lawful purposes? But isn't that a legal rather than a factual argument. Or does he concede that the court got all of the facts correct but applied the wrong legal standard?

I suppose we will have to wait to see just what BS he will come up with.

[donny77]

"This apparent flood of new large-capacity magazines into the State poses an unacceptable danger to public safety."

This is an opinion not a fact. Even if this were true, law enforcement has no duty to protect the public. (https://www.google.com/search?q=law+...hrome&ie=UTF-8) Given that there is no duty to protect the public, given that any magazines purchased would be subject to disposal or storage outside the state of California should the ruling be overturned and the law upheld in its entirety, there is zero harm done to the State. They have zero grounds to request a stay.

[CalAlumnus]

Sean, why did the plaintiff do the DOJ's work for them instead of letting the DOJ burn their own clock, man hours and resources to get the information to support their own argument(s) ?

It appears that move was batting for the wrong team instead of using the clock to the benefit of the plaintiff.

IANAL, but my sense is that a stay is inevitable (either from Benitez or 9C). Plaintiffs will oppose it, of course, but they also want to do whatever they can to protect those who purchased before the stay was in effect. Showing evidence that such purchases occurred helps bolster that case.

[kenl]

"This apparent flood of new large-capacity magazines into the State poses an unacceptable danger to public safety."
....

Imho the lcm's and the people acquiring them aren't the "unacceptable dange", it's the author of this absurd statement and the mentality behind it. Btw this is the same office that is headed by a man who wants to decriminalize illegal boarder crossings because the people doing it have "no criminal intent". (That gem just hit the news less than an hour ago)