Baird v. Becerra (USDC Eastern District of CA) Open Carry

[abinsinia]

Submitted (ECF) Supplemental Brief for review. Submitted by Appellants Mark Baird and Richard Gallardo. Date of service: 11/07/2023. [12820909] [23-15016] (Bellantoni, Amy) [Entered: 11/07/2023 11:37 AM]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.341987/gov.uscourts.ca9.341987.40.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

Submitted (ECF) Supplemental Brief for review. Submitted by Appellee Rob Bonta. Date of service: 11/01/2023. [12820777] [23-15016]--[COURT UPDATE: Backdated entry to reflect original submission date. 11/07/2023 by JMR] (Haddad, Lara) [Entered: 11/07/2023 10:02 AM]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.341987/gov.uscourts.ca9.341987.38.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

Both parties agree that the case should not be re-heard en banc. Even Bonta says no.

[CrazyCobraManTim]

Oh Yea of High Moral Standards....

You had me at ?F*ck the Ninth Circuit?.

....<<sniped>>

I must be loose or a whore (or both).

Cuz he had me at "FucX the 9th" .... I didn't go the proper grammar route and spell it all out

[Bhobbs]

It's not En Banc on the whole case as Mark stated. It's only En Banc on the interlocutory preliminary injunction appeal decision. It's because Mark got a good three judge panel for the appeal and they asserted some things the liberal majority on the court didn't like.

It's still a sign of desperation tho.

It?s not desperation. Desperation means they have a chance of losing. This is the anti gunners expanding their power.

[deckhandmike]

So next step and timeline?

[abinsinia]

It?s not desperation. Desperation means they have a chance of losing. This is the anti gunners expanding their power.

The desperation is that they have to control every aspect of the narrative regarding how the Bruen test works, even down to appeals on a preliminary injunction. Even down to a motions panel in Duncan, etc.. The desperation is that their anti-2A bias with be lost.

[AlmostHeaven]

I do not perceive the Ninth Circuit moves as "desperation" when they have successfully stymied virtually all progress towards restoring Second Amendment rights in Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii.

[TruOil]

Both parties agree that the case should not be re-heard en banc. Even Bonta says no.

Which means that the three judge motions panel has to decide the stay, rather than the merits panel or the en banc panel for Duncan. Maybe, just maybe, the motions panel was trying to avoid having to deal with it. I really don't see what jurisdiction the en ban panel would have, since this case was never heard en banc but was held pending Bruen.

[mcbair]

Agreed TruOil, nothing has been decided. Obviously district court judges suffer no consequence for defiance of a three judge panel. The Second Amendment is our only defense against the lawlessness of the government and of the courts.
Rights are not permissions. Permissions are not rights!
Muller asks State?s attorney Hadid, ? can you show me one law which required a license to carry in 1791?. Hadid answers, ?no your honor, there were none?.

[Sgt Raven]

^^^^^^^^


That should be "Game, Set, Match" right there.

[wchutt]

Easier way to help with the funding of Baird v Becerra than mailing a check:

http://tokeepandbear.com/

[mcbair]

Ninth Cir mandate issued on the reversal and remand of our P.I. The en banc panel delayed the issuance of the mandate while they decided whether to grab the case or not. The en banc is out of the picture, at least for now.

The Summary judgement is under advisement. The Ninth, in its reversal and remand, has ordered a P.I. Using the correct Winters and Bruen guidance. The Ninth has also order her to stop doing the State?s job and to uphold the Constitution whether she likes it or not.
If we lose on the P.I., we will appeal to the same panel that gave us a unanimous decision before.
Muler has abused her discretion, violated he own standing orders, violated federal rules of procedure, failed to follow orders from her appellate court, failed to follow Ninth Circuit case law, failed to follow USSC precedent. She has allowed the State to file 1190 pages of ?additional evidence?, after the Summary judgement oral arguments, in spite of our objections.
In short??if she orders for the state in the Summary Judgement, she has already written our appeal for us.
Is anyone else tired of crooked courts and crooked judges?
God Bless all of you. My wife and I wish all of Gods Blessings for you and your families this Christmas!

[AlmostHeaven]

Merry Christmas! God bless you, your family, and the United States Constitution.

[Rickybillegas]

Thank you for your fight!

Merry Christmas.