Jones v. Bonta - Age-Based Ban on Firearm Purchases

[FirearmFino]

Jones v. Bonta
Southern District of California
Judge: M. James Lorenz
3:19-cv-01226
Ninth Circuit
Panel: R. Nelson, Lee, Stein (SDNY)
20-56174

SAN DIEGO, CAwww.firearmspolicy.org/jonesDistrict Court:

7/1/19: Complaint

7/30/19: Amended Complaint

11/8/19: Second Amended Complaint

1/14/20: Order Denying Amicus Motions

11/3/20: Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Circuit Court:

12/4/20: Appellants' Opening Brief

1/20/21:

2/9/21: Appellants' Reply Brief

3/6/21: Order for Supplemental Briefing

4/23/21:

4/23/21:

5/3/21:

5/3/21:

5/12/21: Oral arguments

5/11/22: Opinion

5/16/22: Joint Motion for Extension of Time To File Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc

5/18/22: Filed text clerk order: The motion for an extension of time to file a Petition for Rehearing and/or Rehearing en Banc is granted.

7/25/22: Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc

8/23/22:

9/2/22:

FPC Case Page - CourtListener Page

[CandG]

Yup. Either make the age of adulthood 21 for everything (including marriage, sexual consent, signing legal documents, joining military, etc.) or else make the age of adulthood 18 for everything. Pick one.. you can't just cherrypick and decide that people in a range of different ages are "minors" for some things and "adults" for other things. It's ridiculous. I don't care if they decide that age is 16, 18, 19, 21, or 25... just pick a damn age and apply it to everything, and stop moving the damn goal posts.

[vintagearms]

Yup. Either make the age of adulthood 21 for everything (including marriage, sexual consent, signing legal documents, joining military, etc.) or else make the age of adulthood 18 for everything. Pick one.. you can't just cherrypick and decide that people in a range of different ages are "minors" for some things and "adults" for other things. It's ridiculous. I don't care if they decide that age is 16, 18, 19, 21, or 25... just pick a damn age and apply it to everything, and stop moving the damn goal posts.

I'd say 18 and call it a day for every state.

[TruOil]

Many states that had an 18 year old age for alcohol have changed to 21, or 18 for bear/wine and 21 for the hard stuff. Too many problems with drunk drivers. My old stomp0ing ground was Louisiana. When I started college a long time ago, it was 18 for everything, but no more.

I had a case in which the age of being an "adult" for the liquor liability law wa an issue. A draft stature had specified 21, but a later version (and for no apparent reason) changed that to an "adult" without specification of age. As it turns out, California use both ages in different statutes, so it is a mixed bag as to whether the courts will agree that there is not inherent right as to the age at which one becomes an adult, ad therefore the state has the right to set it wherever it wants. And as it stands, the state has a 21 year old requirement for handguns, perhaps due to the fact that such arms are used more often in shootings than any other; is it any wonder that "AWs" are (on obviously slanted statistics) viewed as being just as "dangerous"? Good luck, but it will be a hard one to reel in.

[FirearmFino]

The case has been assigned to Judge M. James Lorenz.

[pacrat]

The case has been assigned to Judge M. James Lorenz.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Judge+M.+James+Lorenz.&oq=Judge+M.+James+Lorenz.&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.4098j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

An 84 yr old Bezerkley Law School Grad appointed by Slick Willy................

[abinsinia]

So what happens when the plaintiff's turn 21 and this case is still on appeal. I mean, these case drag on for decades ..

[FirearmFino]

So what happens when the plaintiff's turn 21 and this case is still on appeal. I mean, these case drag on for decades ..

It looks like more plaintiffs are being sought, but wouldn't this fall under "Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review"?

[Librarian]

While I agree the suit is justified, and any attack on the nonsense applied against CA gun owners is a good idea in the abstract, is this a wise use of funds just now?

The pleadings in my mailbox, nearly at the level of Democrat fund-raising, persist in telling me someone does not have enough money to prosecute already-existing cases.

[FirearmFino]

The pleadings in my mailbox, nearly at the level of Democrat fund-raising, persist in telling me someone does not have enough money to prosecute already-existing cases.

Hopefully that's not the case

While the Firearms Policy Coalition doesn't have a very extensive record, it's hard for me to believe that the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation would put their names on this if that was the case.

[freonr22]

Hopefully that's not the case

While the Firearms Policy Coalition doesn't have a very extensive record, it's hard for me to believe that the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation would put their names on this if that was the case.

Well Brandon is involved in Cgf, (or was, no indication hes not) and FPC. So, why wouldn't he support himself?

[CandG]

Hopefully that's not the case



While the Firearms Policy Coalition doesn't have a very extensive record, it's hard for me to believe that the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation would put their names on this if that was the case.

Already forgot about their large capacity magazine lawsuit that they filed months after Duncan? I remember it well, because it quickly crashed and burned and, along the way, nearly FUBAR'd Duncan too.

Probably they could have better spent those funds on something else... Like, I don't know... Maybe funding the Duncan case. But nope, they wanted their own case that they could use to generate their own donations, knowing fully well that they were essentially diverting donations away from Duncan.

My favorite part was when they used the news of the Duncan win to try to solicit more donations for themselves, despite having no involvement in Duncan other than being an obstacle in its path to success.

[FirearmFino]

Already forgot about their large capacity magazine lawsuit that they filed months after Duncan? I remember it well, because it quickly crashed and burned and, along the way, nearly FUBAR'd Duncan too.

Ah right, I did forget that they were the ones who filed Wiese, and I didn't realize how FPC and Calguns were connected.

[HowardW56]

Already forgot about their large capacity magazine lawsuit that they filed months after Duncan?

The Firearms Policy Coalition case was filed first on 4/28/2017, and Duncan was filed on 5/17/2017.

[MolonLabe2008]

Many states that had an 18 year old age for alcohol have changed to 21, or 18 for bear/wine and 21 for the hard stuff. Too many problems with drunk drivers. My old stomp0ing ground was Louisiana. When I started college a long time ago, it was 18 for everything, but no more.

I had a case in which the age of being an "adult" for the liquor liability law wa an issue. A draft stature had specified 21, but a later version (and for no apparent reason) changed that to an "adult" without specification of age. As it turns out, California use both ages in different statutes, so it is a mixed bag as to whether the courts will agree that there is not inherent right as to the age at which one becomes an adult, ad therefore the state has the right to set it wherever it wants. And as it stands, the state has a 21 year old requirement for handguns, perhaps due to the fact that such arms are used more often in shootings than any other; is it any wonder that "AWs" are (on obviously slanted statistics) viewed as being just as "dangerous"? Good luck, but it will be a hard one to reel in.

Consuming alcohol is not a protected Constitutional right.