Rhode v. Becerra (Challenge to CA Ammo Sales) - ORAL ARGS at 9th 11-9-2020

[eaglemike]

Under this argument, the State could make slavery legal again because it relies on laws which were passed before those laws were outlawed by the 14th.

The arguments made by the state are false because they're disingenuous. They leave out changes made during the analog period as if those changes, instead of being major, are minor and inconsequential. This is an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the court by purposely misstating the law through omission.

Again, as a lawyer you don't get to make any old argument, you only get to make valid arguments. An argument which promotes reestablishing slavery based on the laws at the time of the founding isn't valid if it leaves out the emancipation proclamation and the 14th Amendment. The same applies to analogs which rely on racist laws designed to discriminate and which violate what was established as a Constitutional Right. "It wasn't a Right back then" is no rebuttal of the fact that it's a Constitutional Right now.

The state is/was supposed to explain with each analog how it complies with THT as declared in Bruen. It's also supposed to document the status of the law since it was in force:, challenged, repealed, still in force, etc.
The state doesn't have valid laws to support their position logically, so they are twisting anything they can in an attempt to support their position. It's pretty sick in some cases. I don't know how they can mentally/morally do that.

[zeneffect]

I guess they are trying to backdoor 2a isn't a individual right in the Rahim case.

[rplaw]

I thought each side had to pay their own legal fees.

Giffords isn't a party, they're amici. By withdrawing they're essentially admitting that the fight is lost because they won't be assisting or contributing on behalf of the State anymore.

This is actually a great sign because they're admitting defeat. We now have to watch to see what their next tactic is and nip it in the bud before it gets rolling.

[zeneffect]

I thought each side had to pay their own legal fees. Like whether the State's AG's office is in court fighting tooth and nail to uphold California's concerted efforts to minimize your freedoms and lose, or if they're just sitting at their desks searching vacation destinations to burn off all that sweet PTO, the cost is the same?

Vacation. When the state sits and encurs expense that cost is extracted from every single tax payer. There is no motivation or incentive to do otherwise. We have no effective tool to bring this sort of frivolous expenditure under control, or recoup monetary losses from a denied 2a right.

[zeneffect]

Under this argument, the State could make slavery legal again because it relies on laws which were passed before those laws were outlawed by the 14th.

I was going to say the argument supports sending us on a trail of tears. Slavery, sure that is also a fair example. Some would argue they have already enacted that though.

[Drivedabizness]

Could it be that greasy hair, going on TV and actually admitting the laws he is trying to pass are unconstitutional and he is now trying to change the 2nd Amendment so that he can get his agenda done up nilce and legal. He also knows that his 28th Amendment isn't going to fly nearly impossible to get it ratified. Not impossible but it is going to be a hard sell to get enough states to go along with it. Maybe Giffords actually seen that the cause is lost and getting out before it gets costly.

Replace "hard sell" with impossible.

43 States take a far different view of the 2A than Brillcream McCaps does.

You'd need almost 2/3 of them to go along. Ain't gonna happen.

[7.62mm_fmj]

The State receives no funding from outside groups in litigating these matters. Outside groups can provide amicus briefs and contribute outside consulting, but The People, through the Legislature or a Proposition, passed the law and the state pays the freight. Outside groups will not be held liable and will not pay one dime in costs or penalties.

I thought each side had to pay their own legal fees. Like whether the State's AG's office is in court fighting tooth and nail to uphold California's concerted efforts to minimize your freedoms and lose, or if they're just sitting at their desks searching vacation destinations to burn off all that sweet PTO, the cost is the same?

[rplaw]

Bull cookies. You do not get to twist their arguments to fit your prejudices. Those laws were NOT unconstitutional prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, and acting in conformance thereof was NOT a criminal act. Racist yes, but not unconstitutional. And they clearly reflect the prejudices and traditions of that day and age. We are not allowed to use our 21st century hindsight and beliefs to condemn them now. They are what they are, and that is a fact, no matter how much you find them personally offensive in the modern era. Citing them as evidence of tradition and practice in the 19th century is entirely appropriate under the Bruen test, even mandated by an attorney's duty to provide the Court with the case laws and authorities good or bad. To suggest that citing a fact of which the Court can take judicial notice is not a basis for proceedings by the State Bar--particularly not against nonlawyer expert witnesses. Nothing that was said is perjurious or false. Nothing said is misleading. Under the circumstances, me thinks you doth protest too loudly.

Under this argument, the State could make slavery legal again because it relies on laws which were passed before those laws were outlawed by the 14th.

The arguments made by the state are false because they're disingenuous. They leave out changes made during the analog period as if those changes, instead of being major, are minor and inconsequential. This is an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the court by purposely misstating the law through omission.

Again, as a lawyer you don't get to make any old argument, you only get to make valid arguments. An argument which promotes reestablishing slavery based on the laws at the time of the founding isn't valid if it leaves out the emancipation proclamation and the 14th Amendment. The same applies to analogs which rely on racist laws designed to discriminate and which violate what was established as a Constitutional Right. "It wasn't a Right back then" is no rebuttal of the fact that it's a Constitutional Right now.

[Dvrjon]

I see a lot of these anti Second Amendment groups taking Giffords lead and following suit. If the states attorneys no longer have the funding from these groups whom most of them got these illegal bills on the books in the first place, now find that these bills are being shot down by the higher courts, maybe it is time to leave the table as well. Going to be like a house of cards that my 3 year old son just crashed. It is going to be interesting to actually see if I am right.

This isn’t a “Go Fund Me” operation; there is no legal defense fund a la Trump.

The State receives no funding from outside groups in litigating these matters. Outside groups can provide amicus briefs and contribute outside consulting, but The People, through the Legislature or a Proposition, passed the law and the state pays the freight. Outside groups will not be held liable and will not pay one dime in costs or penalties.

[Dvrjon]

Has anything good ever come out of the California ballot initiative system? The state legislature may pass a lot of awful legislation, but the sheer stupidity that results from propositions seems to reach a whole new level.

Prop 8, 2008 banning gay marriage and Prop 187, 1994, cutting off illegal immigrant aid had wide-spread support.

In regards to this action, the Legislature passed a similar ammunition restriction bill years before, but it was found to be ambiguous and was canned by the courts. De Leon authored that piece and was preparing to resurrect it when Giffords and Newsom stole the idea and edited the provisions for Prop 63. Then De Leon authored SB 2345 which cloned Prop 63 (with a minor exception) and got it passed and signed before Prop 13 got to the ballot. The point being that ammunition control was going on the books without Prop 63.

[Sputnik]

Giffords bailed out of the Rhode case.

Rat, meet sinking ship.

[pacrat]

Prop 13

Prop 13. Before that people were having to sell or losing their paid off homes because property taxes were going up so fast.

ADD .....

Proposition 58 and 193 are constitutional provisions that provide property tax relief by excluding from reassessment the transfer of a principal residence and the transfer of up to one million dollars ($1,000,000) of other real property between parents and children or from grandparent to grandchild.

Which strengthened 13

[darkwater34]

I see a lot of these anti Second Amendment groups taking Giffords lead and following suit. If the states attorneys no longer have the funding from these groups whom most of them got these illegal bills on the books in the first place, now find that these bills are being shot down by the higher courts, maybe it is time to leave the table as well. Going to be like a house of cards that my 3 year old son just crashed. It is going to be interesting to actually see if I am right.

[darkwater34]

Could it be that greasy hair, going on TV and actually admitting the laws he is trying to pass are unconstitutional and he is now trying to change the 2nd Amendment so that he can get his agenda done up nilce and legal. He also knows that his 28th Amendment isn't going to fly nearly impossible to get it ratified. Not impossible but it is going to be a hard sell to get enough states to go along with it. Maybe Giffords actually seen that the cause is lost and getting out before it gets costly.

[darkwater34]

So Giffords backing out is leaving the State of California to foot the bill. It is like inviting someone to dinner then leaving them with the excuse of using the bathroom and the date believing that you will be back to take care of the check. Not knowing that he/she will be paying the check. This case has already been up to the SCOTUS and now it is back in Benitez's hands to make the final judgment. He is like the waiter bringing the check to the table nice time to duck out before he presents the check..