2019 Fouts/Tolentino v Becerra: 10-17-22 Vacated and Remanded

[hermosabeach]

Thanks for clarifying

[Sputnik]

How long until the 9th stays and reverses for “reasons”?

[AlmostHeaven]

We're done until the next time these same cases to sent back to Benitez.

I doubt the Ninth Circuit will send Duncan, Miller, or Rhode back a third time, but of course I can make no guarantees.

Nope, Sap is still illegal from the way I read the conclusion and order. The only thing struck is the Billy section the rest is severed and still in force

California Penal Code S 22210 states:
". . . any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any leaded cane, or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a billy, blackjack, sandbag, sandclub, sap, or slungshot, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section
1170."

Section G Severability
California Penal Code S 22210 prohibits the making, selling, and possessing of a long list of non-firearm weapons, including the billy. The prohibitions regarding the billy are unconstitutional. The question then becomes whether the unconstitutional part of S 22210 can be severed from the rest. It can.
Severability is of course a matter of state law. To determine whether a state statute is severable, we are bound by state statutes and state court opinions. Project Veritas v. Schmidt, 72 F.4th 1043, 1063 (9th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted). In California, courts first look to a severability clause. See Sam Francis Found. v. Christies, Inc., 784 F.3d 1320, 1325 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (citing Cal. Redev. ***'n v. Matosantos, 53 Cal. 4th 231 (Cal. 2011). Section 22210 does not have a severability clause. 65
Nevertheless, there are three additional criteria that may be considered: whether the invalid provision is grammatically, functionally, and volitionally separable. Cal. Redev. ***'n, 53 Cal. 4th at 271.
Here, all three criteria are met. First, removing "billy" from the list in S 22210,
does not change the grammatical structure. Grammatical separability exists because the invalid part (billy) can be removed as a whole without affecting the wording or coherence of what remains and the revised provision is perfectly coherent. Id. Second, there is functional separability because the remainder of the statute is complete. Id. Third, the volitional separability test is met because it seems obvious that the remainder of S 22210 would have been adopted by the legislature, had it foreseen the partial invalidation of the statute. Id.; see also Sam Francis Found., 784 F.3d at 1326. Accordingly, the term "billy" is hereby severed from the remainder of S 22210

Whoever spent all the legal resources litigating such a narrow case about only billy clubs, without challenging the rest of the statute, needs to reevaluate their priorities.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit as to 87 Clerk's Judgment,, 86 Order by Rob Bonta. ( Filing fee $ 605 receipt number ACASDC-18618360.) (Notice of Appeal electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals.) (Attachments: # 1 Representation Statement)(Echeverria, John) (Entered: 02/26/2024)

The inevitable appeal.

[pdsmith505]

Whoever spent all the legal resources litigating such a narrow case about only billy clubs, without challenging the rest of the statute, needs to reevaluate their priorities.

You are more than welcome to file your own lawsuit.

Alan Beck (Wolfwood here) and Steve Stamboulieh have done a lot for the pro-2a community nationwide, and likely know more than just a little about winning legal strategy.

[AlmostHeaven]

The average voter possesses unfortunately low awareness of the shambolic elite projects that the government vociferously consumes taxpayer dollars to advance. Keeping billy clubs illegal is merely the latest example.

[glbtrottr]

Having been charged for carrying a Billy by an overzealous idiotic CHP rookie, all I can say is it took long enough ?.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlmostHeaven]

Having been charged for carrying a Billy by an overzealous idiotic CHP rookie, all I can say is it took long enough ?

Wow. That is insane. Did you have to go all the way to trial?

[nosuchagency]

so in this instance and of this morning the state is not seeking a stay on injunction and has only filed an appeal?

[SpudmanWP]

The Appeal itself has not been filed yet and there could still be a motion to stay.

[AlmostHeaven]

The Newsom administration and Bonta DOJ will certainly ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay.

[Rustlin’ Jack]

Does the decision include collapsible batons? Carrying one long stick? Two sticks? Two sticks connected by a chain???

Open Carry? Concealed carry? Both?

Serial numbers and Registration?

Permit required? GMC? Training required? ?Safe storage??

So many questions.

https://youtu.be/tJPi7kt0Iok?si=Os5Wf9Hy8oMbuqwc

Rob himself says that collapsible batons are good to go.

Press Release Attorney General Bonta Appeals District Court Decision Overt?
print button email button facebook button twitter button messenger button
Monday, February 26, 2024
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov
SACRAMENTO ? California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement after filing an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking to reverse a district court decision ruling that California?s prohibition on the manufacture, importation, sale, or possession of a "billy club" or baton weapon, under Penal Code section 22210 is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. ?Billy club? was the term used when the law enacted in 1923 and the current text of the law has retained that terminology. The appeal would seek to overturn the district court decision in Fouts v. Bonta. Attorney General Bonta will urge the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the district court?s decision, which will ensure that these vital public safety protections remain in place to prevent unwarranted injuries in California communities.

?The decision to overturn an over 100-year-old law not only defies logic but contradicts the Supreme Court?s decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen,? said Attorney General Bonta. ?We have filed an appeal, as this decision puts public safety at risk. The Supreme Court was clear that Bruen did not create a regulatory straitjacket for states ? and we believe that the district court got this wrong. We will not stop in our efforts to protect the safety of communities.?

The potential public safety risk is this new ruling would permit civilian possession of modern "billy clubs", such as the expandable ASP baton. This baton can be concealed and used in public disturbances or riots, as it was during the January 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The plaintiffs allege that California's prohibition on the acquisition and possession of batons violates the Second Amendment. In 2021, the Attorney General prevailed in the federal district court on the constitutionality of the law, and the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. Following the Supreme Court's decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the case was remanded to the federal district court for further proceedings. The Attorney General will continue to defend the law on appeal.

[AlmostHeaven]

Rob himself says that collapsible batons are good to go.

I laugh at how even the official California DOJ statement from Attorney General Bonta does not pretend that defending the collapsible baton ban will save any lives, only that doing so would prevent "unwarranted injuries."

[abinsinia]

USCA Case Number 24-1039 for 88 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit, filed by Rob Bonta. (Attachments: # 1 Attorney Appeal Case Opening, # 2 Pro Se Appeals Case Opening, # 3 Ninth Circuit Appellate Mentoring Program, # 4 Appellate Practice Guide)(dim) (Main Document 91 replaced on 2/28/2024) (dim). (Entered: 02/28/2024)

USCA Time Schedule Order as to 88 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit, filed by Rob Bonta. (NOTICE TO PARTIES of deadlines regarding appellate transcripts: Appellant shall file transcript designation and ordering form with the US District Court, provide a copy of the form to the court reporter, and make payment arrangements with the court reporter on or by 3/27/2024 (see Ninth Circuit Rule 10-3.1); Due date for filing of transcripts in US District Court is 4/26/2024.) (cc: Court Reporter). (dim) (Entered: 02/28/2024)

Here's the case number for the appeal.

[nosuchagency]

seems to me that were they going to file for stay it'd been done by now.