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

[Sgt Raven]

What's the difference between a DVRO and a Red Flag restraining order if done by a family member or coworker?

It depends on whether it is an 'ex parte' hearing or not, for one thing.

[TruOil]

It depends on whether it is an 'ex parte' hearing or not, for one thing.

False. A temporary restraining order can be issued in either case, subject to a later noticed hearing on the merits after service of papers on the party to be restrained. As California law now stands, however, more people can request a red flag order than can request a DVRO.

[Kevin James]

I REALLY want to see this turn in to a win. But, I have a question. I'm by no means knowledgeable about this process, but assuming we get a win from this three judge panel, isn't the state just going to come back and ask for en banc review? With a majority of liberal judges in the 9th circus, it seems very far fetched to me that the full circuit wouldn't reverse the three judge panel's decision and hand the win right back to the state. Am I missing something? Because I'm really hoping I am.

[TruOil]

I REALLY want to see this turn in to a win. But, I have a question. I'm by no means knowledgeable about this process, but assuming we get a win from this three judge panel, isn't the state just going to come back and ask for en banc review? With a majority of liberal judges in the 9th circus, it seems very far fetched to me that the full circuit wouldn't reverse the three judge panel's decision and hand the win right back to the state. Am I missing something? Because I'm really hoping I am.

No, you are not wrong, as this is precisely what will occur. But the demographics of the Court have changed, and there are more Republican judges that before. Further, the selection of the en banc panel is supposed to be by random selection of active judges, except for the Chief Judge, who is always on the panel. Whether or not it actually is random we will never know. But even if it is, it is just a roll of the dice as to who ends up selected for the panel deciding the case. If you want to calculate odds, the odds favor the selection of a liberal panel as there are more liberals that conservatives, plus the liberal Chief Judge who is also a liberal.

[Kevin James]

No, you are not wrong, as this is precisely what will occur. But the demographics of the Court have changed, and there are more Republican judges that before. Further, the selection of the en banc panel is supposed to be by random selection of active judges, except for the Chief Judge, who is always on the panel. Whether or not it actually is random we will never know. But even if it is, it is just a roll of the dice as to who ends up selected for the panel deciding the case. If you want to calculate odds, the odds favor the selection of a liberal panel as there are more liberals that conservatives, plus the liberal Chief Judge who is also a liberal.

So really, the likelihood is that one way or another the ninth circus will shoot this down as usual, whether in the 3 judge panel or the en banc panel, and then we can add this to the mile long list of cases we need to seek Supreme Court review of, which as usual may take years if it happens at all. Awesome. So sick of this corrupt state.

[Sgt Raven]

So really, the likelihood is that one way or another the ninth circus will shoot this down as usual, whether in the 3 judge panel or the en banc panel, and then we can add this to the mile long list of cases we need to seek Supreme Court review of, which as usual may take years if it happens at all. Awesome. So sick of this corrupt state.

Maybe, maybe not. The en banc panel drawn for Teter has 6 Judges appointed by Trump.
The possibility that we might win has greatly improved from the old days.

[abinsinia]

REPLY BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant Mark Baird. [Entered: 07/22/2024 07:23 PM]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.162a8c5d-a620-4d1e-9cf9-283b737b97ce/gov.uscourts.ca9.162a8c5d-a620-4d1e-9cf9-283b737b97ce.34.0.pdf

[7.62mm_fmj]

That's a great brief. History and tradition show only a prohibiting the carrying of arms in a manner that strikes fear or terror into a population and concealed carry. There were no "open carry" licensing regimes to be found, only public carry restrictions in certain situations and places. Outright concealed carry prohibitions are also unlawful, but the regulation of concealed carry is "presumptively lawful" under Bruen.

[TruOil]

Three cheers for Amy Bellantoni! A powerfully written brief! The only thing holding up the bans were the public safety argument--that we must all be disarmed for our own good. And she shut that down completely.
Sad to say, a bad panel will twist the case law to uphold the law, but such is. I don't think SCOTUS wants to go there either, but what she writes compels that it must.

[mcbair]

We should be close to getting on the calendar. At last report the original panel retained jurisdiction. GOA and affiliate groups like Cal Guns in addition to Mountain Legal have filed 2 amicus on our behalf. Both briefs are very well written. As you all know, the state’s case has not changed in any way. The same tired public safety and the ridiculous notion that no one really openly carried loaded weapons in 1791. The same arguments debunked at least a dozen times. Judge Vandyke wrote a pretty scathing rebuke to the Democrat hack of a pseudo judge over her treatment of these same arguments over a year ago.
On the other side, our case has become even stronger than it was. The two amicus in addition to elements of Rahimi put us in a very favorable position in front of this panel. I will win with a unanimous vote. Here is the open question. What will happen afterward. Almost 100 percent of favorable 2A rulings have gone en banc. CA should take the loss on this one because it only affects CA and Hawaii in the 9th. The other states within the 9th are already open carry. If this is heard by USSC and we prevail the entire United States would be open carry. Not a good look for the Commie liars in CA if New York has to go Constitutional carry, because of California arrogance.
I can win this if I can pay. The next visit to court will cost 20-30 thousand. Perhaps a little cheaper but not much. I have about 3 thousand in the 501C3 account.
My wife and I are not wealthy. This case will cease if I cannot pay my attorney. She has been very generous with her time and pretty good about me paying the bill l

[mcbair]

When I went to post some of the end was cut off.
www.tokeepandbear.com to donate with credit card.
to donate by check. Please write 2A on the memo line so the money goes toward the correct account. We have no paid staff. 100% of the money goes to court costs and attorney. Thank you and God Bless you all!
PECAN
14421 Old Oregon Trail
Redding CA 96003

[mcbair]

Case will be heard on June 24th in Seattle. If you can, please help! Www.tokeepandbear.com to donate.
This panel gave us a unanimous opinion before. There are no new facts to present. We have amicus briefs from GOA and Mountain Legal Foundation.
California has nothing! Public safety and you don’t need the Right to bear arms when we might give you permission, to carry sometimes, but only if the state allows it. This case is ours to win if you stand with me and help! Please donate.