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

[Uncivil Engineer]

Here is an quick note about the hearing.

https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1681071428337295360

[homelessdude]

Where are the guys who said he was dogging it. Sounds like he read everything. I wonder how long it will take to turn all that into a verdict? I know 2 weeks. Looking forward to reading Kostas's thoughts on todays hearing. Did anyone from here go to the courtroom today?

[foehammer]

The anticipation is killing me.

[eaglemike]

Ok - I was there. Judge Benitez is giving the state every chance to prove their position. He's allowing 30 days for them to come up with expert testimony in support of background checks. I think the context is for ammunition, since that is what the case is about, but that entire term wasn't used all the time.
State had 2 deputy AG's there, Lopez and Echeverria. Ms Lopez did most of the talking. She argued that part of the history supporting the state's position are the laws that prevented slaves and other disadvantaged persons from owning arms are a part of history and should be considered. (ugh - and Judge B asked some questions about that) She also mentioned laws early in the US' life about requiring people to swear fealty to the US. This was done in support to the state's efforts to prevent undesirables from acquiring arms.
SEAN BRADY and KONSTADINOS T. MOROS represented the Plaintiffs.
The state is also questioning standing on several issues. Judge B isn't buying it IMHO, but the plaintiffs will have a chance to update status of some things regarding standing.
Issues questioned by the state:
Does anyone really want to buy ammunition in AZ (for example) and bring it back? Current law would require shipping to a FFL and then going through the background check. If this would be you and you are a member of the CRPA, contact the plaintiff's attorney.
Another potential situation - say you are at a match/shooting trap/other game and the guy next to you runs short 1 round. Legally you cannot just give him even 1 round of .22, it must be transferred through an ffl with background check and fee, real ID, etc.
The state also posits that a real ID is not an impediment to acquiring ammunition. The background check is also in full agreement with Bruen, referring to footnote 9. Plaintiffs attorney Moros pointed out this was in reference to a background check for a ccw, and is a 1-time check, not an "every transaction" check situation.
Also, it seems as though the state wants to kick this down the road forever. They lose nothing by doing this, and preserve the status quo.
Judge B did say he's inclined to decide this case on the merits, and not go though a full trial. He did say that's possible, but he prefers to decide on merits.
Obviously this is only my impression and effort at a synopsis. My guess is that it would be close to the end of the year if not longer before the decision is issued. He did mention that he didn't want this case to go up and down the chain to the 9th and back, etc, so wants to get it done, fully decided so he doesn't have to keep dealing with it. Remember he did decide this case once using intermediate scrutiny in favor on the plaintiff, and Bruen discarded intermediate scrutiny.
My prediction is the plaintiffs will prevail. It's not going to be in 60 days.
I have a major headache after listening to Ms Lopez speak. Judge B certainly is not showing any bias.
What other right requires an ID and background check? Much less every transaction? What is this BS if I want to give a friend a box of .22 at a match? on and on........

[SpudmanWP]

Does anyone know if the oral args audio will be posted somewhere?

There will not be any as that court is not part of CA's pilot program for streaming.

[eaglemike]

Another issue was raised about how the legislature repealed the original Prop 63 and replaced it with the current mess. If Judge B declares the current law unconstitutional, does Prop 63 come back - answer is no, as that was repealed and replaced.
I know this isn't a perfect account, so please forgive any errors. It's worth what you paid me for it.
Off to down some Excedrin.

[abinsinia]

Another issue was raised about how the legislature repealed the original Prop 63 and replaced it with the current mess. If Judge B declares the current law unconstitutional, does Prop 63 come back - answer is no, as that was repealed and replaced.
I know this isn't a perfect account, so please forgive any errors. It's worth what you paid me for it.
Off to down some Excedrin.

Thanks for taking the time to go in person and bring back the details.

[7.62mm_fmj]

Thanks for the update.

Although I was hoping for some sort of pro-2A action today, I'm used to being disappointed, like every single time.

[eaglemike]

Thanks for taking the time to go in person and bring back the details.

My pleasure.

I think Judge B is doing everything he can to keep from giving the defendants any ammunition (pun intended) for an appeal. Of course, it doesn't matter, as we know it will be appealed.
After listening to the state's arguments today, I'm satisfied the state will go to any length, and make any possible twist of logic to support their position. Of course, we knew that already.
Judge B mentioned he used to hunt doves in Az, and once in a while might have some shells left over and bring them home. He mentioned the current law would make that difficult. DAG Lopez alleged that sort of situation wasn't mentioned in the suit, and doesn't seem to think that matters, or is an issue.

[Bhobbs]

He’s just now asking for expert testimony? 30 days for testimony, 30 days for responses, 30 days for responses to those responses.

Man, I thought Christmas was being generous. Might be a good Valentines day surprise.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Thanks for the update.

Although I was hoping for some sort of pro-2A action today, I'm used to being disappointed, like every single time.

I don't know about you but watching the state say they can keep their gun laws because they are pro slavery looks pro 2a to me. That campaign ad writes itself. And while it wont matter in California it will in many states and counties were each vote counted matters.

[JiuJitsu]

Yea, thanks for the update Mike. We appreciate it.

Sounds like listening to the CA Deputy AG?s painful blabbering defense was as headache-inducing as reading their legal briefs for each of these 2A cases.

[eaglemike]

He?s just now asking for expert testimony? 30 days for testimony, 30 days for responses, 30 days for responses to those responses.

Man, I thought Christmas was being generous. Might be a good Valentines day surprise.

No, he not asking for it. The state asked for leave to submit that to the court. If he denied that it would be an issue to raise on appeal. He has to avoid giving them stuff to use. There's procedural stuff regarding experts. He said he doesn't need an expert to explain the law to him. IMO this is entirely to prevent that line of appeal.

[GoatLovin]

Thank you for taking the time to give us a synopsis. Looks like it solidly went our way today.

The state arguing for laws used against slaves is rich.

[eaglemike]

Yea, thanks for the update Mike. We appreciate it.

Sounds like listening to the CA Deputy AG?s painful blabbering defense was as headache-inducing as reading their legal briefs for each of these 2A cases.

Exactly.
As someone that paid just a little attention in school/civics class, it's a real struggle to not be impatient with them. I wanted to shake my head so many times today. I actually did a few times, but not emphatically. Judge Benitez is having eye surgery in a couple of weeks, so he couldn't see me shaking my head.