Renna v Bonta - US Dist Ct So Cal, 11/2020 (Roster: PI granted and stayed 3-31-23)

[BlessedHunter]

CA filed their reply brief..........not a few sentences in you get this.

"With respect to the textual analysis, it is Plaintiffs? burden to establish that the
Second Amendment?s plain text covers their proposed course of conduct".

Someone with a judicial background please explain to me how this makes sense.

Bruen clearly states "We hold that when the Second Amend-
ment?s plain text covers an individual?s conduct, the Consti-
tution presumptively protects that conduct".

Are they trying to say that plaintiffs need to prove the roster falls under the 2A?.........

[AlmostHeaven]

CA filed their reply brief..........not a few sentences in you get this.

"With respect to the textual analysis, it is Plaintiffs' burden to establish that the
Second Amendment's plain text covers their proposed course of conduct".

Someone with a judicial background please explain to me how this makes sense.

Bruen clearly states "We hold that when the Second Amend-
ment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Consti-
tution presumptively protects that conduct".

Are they trying to say that plaintiffs need to prove the roster falls under the 2A?.........

The state, recognizing the difficulty of meeting the burden of needing to present relevant historical analogues to justify the challenged gun regulation, is attempting to argue that the issue at hand falls outside the scope of the "plain text" of the Second Amendment.

This is nothing but an utterly intellectually bankrupt argument.

[mshill]

This is nothing but an utterly intellectually bankrupt argument.

Nothing new for these *******s. It just comes way too naturally for them.

[Dvrjon]

Near as I can tell:

The district court issued a PI in favor of the Plaintiffs. The State is challenging the PI on the allegation that it wasn?t properly founded. Their claim is that the evaluation of the levying of the injunction failed to show the Plaintiff?s likelihood of success. Paragraph 4 of this This Yale Article (Thanks, Sgt. Raven) discusses the injunction/stay requirements.

In weighing stay requests, motions panels apply the Nken v. Holder framework, which requires the movant to demonstrate:

-a strong likelihood of success on the merits;
-a showing of irreparable harm;
-the balance of the equities favors a stay; and,
-the public interest favors a stay.

After resolution of the government’s stay request, the (typical) next step in these controversies is for the government to appeal the district court’s PI before a three-judge *merits* panel of the Ninth Circuit. For these PI appeals, CA9 reviews district courts for abuse of discretion. The district court’s decision making, in turn, is judged against the Winter v. NRDC framework for granting injunctive relief. Under Winter, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish:

-likelihood of success on the merits;
-a showing of irreparable harm;
-the balance of equities favors a PI; and,
-the public interest favors a PI.

For both the Nken and Winter frameworks, note that the leading factor is the likelihood of a party?s success on the merits.

So, for stays/injunctions, the Movant must carry a burden of likelihood of success on the merits at trial. In that regard,

"With respect to the textual analysis, it is Plaintiffs' burden to establish that the Second Amendment's plain text covers their proposed course of conduct".

Bruen clearly states "We hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct".

Plaintiffs had to present information which showed that the plain text covers the course of conduct so the Bruen admonition (“We hold that WHEN”) can be applied.

At trial, the SCOTUS guidelines engage and the State must defend against the allegation of infringement on a Right.

[JiuJitsu]

CA’s PI response brief was intellectually dishonest as usual. And the state just clings to interest balancing and disingenuous public safety pleas over and over and over. They just cant help themselves, can they?

Commonsense gun safety! Protect the public! Yea, thats not how this works anymore. Try again.

I also just love how they keep referencing the Pena case which extensively and improperly relied upon the two-step method that Bruen now expressly forbids.

[Chewy65]

I haven't dug into this one much, but I would think a big issue that the state must overcome is, as Sgt Raven's post of a Yale article in part quoted by Dvrjon, is the trial court's decision is only reversible for an abuse of discretion.

For these PI appeals, CA9 reviews district courts for abuse of discretion.

[PrayForAmerica]

Based on what? The circuit courts have shown zero interest in complying with SCOTUS.

Due to the volume of cases, SCOTUS?s influence is basically zero. Circuit courts do what they want. It took 15 years for SCOTUS to address interest balancing and the courts are still doing it. Lower courts know SCOTUS has no mechanism for defending its rulings. The PIs are immediately slapped down by judges that disagree with Heller and Bruen because they ultimately have the power. Easterbrook didn?t even bother to allow the plaintiffs to submit briefs before he stayed the PI. You have sitting congressmen basically saying they will have to ignore SCOTUS, if SCOTUS strikes down AWBs.

The reality is SCOTUS has lost control over gun rights to the circuit courts and to the states. They have allowed lower courts and states to dismiss their authority. It?s almost certain that states will pass revised AWBs under a new name and the whole cycle will repeat.

Sure, some district court judges will comply with Bruen but we have seen more than a few that won?t. The circuit courts have shown zero interest in Bruen.

Until SCOTUS realizes they have lost control, it doesn?t matter.

This has been my concern. Sure we are seeing some wins, and I will take what we can get. But 15 years to address interest balancing is a perfect example of the problems. Anything takes years upon YEARS to rule upon, and then just one legislative cycle to pass binding & enforcable unconstitutional law and the whole cycle continues. 5 years for a bad law is all they need. They can pass another the moment that is struck down.
I've been thinking alot of Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. And that's right where we are. From the criminals, to the courts. Nobody fears because justice takes decades (unless you're a conservative, but I'll stop there )

ANYWAY... Preaching to the choir I know and I'm sorry. I am excited to see the progress I really am! Just wish (like EVERYONE) there was for it to happen sooner.

[AlmostHeaven]

I've been thinking alot of Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. And that's right where we are. From the criminals, to the courts. Nobody fears because justice takes decades (unless you're a conservative, but I'll stop there )

ANYWAY... Preaching to the choir I know and I'm sorry. I am excited to see the progress I really am! Just wish (like EVERYONE) there was for it to happen sooner.

I completely agree, but I have hope. The pace of gun rights litigation has never moved more quickly in my lifetime.

After District of Columbia v. Heller, only a few dozen gun rights cases went up the appeals court ladder over the course of a decade, and the vast majority got crushed by the two-step interest balancing test.

After NYSRPA v. Bruen, on the order of fifty Second Amendment challenges have spawned in a single year, with a few of them receiving preliminary injunctions. The others, although not as immediately successful, have nonetheless made more progress in a year than previous iterations did in fifteen.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but unlike in previous decades, they are now turning.

[michigander]

I completely agree, but I have hope. The pace of gun rights litigation has never moved more quickly in my lifetime.

After District of Columbia v. Heller, only a few dozen gun rights cases went up the appeals court ladder over the course of a decade, and the vast majority got crushed by the two-step interest balancing test.

After NYSRPA v. Bruen, on the order of fifty Second Amendment challenges have spawned in a single year, with a few of them receiving preliminary injunctions. The others, although not as immediately successful, have nonetheless made more progress in a year than previous iterations did in fifteen.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but unlike in previous decades, they are now turning.

That?s true, but a significant number of those cases were because states are testing the limits of Bruen (or throwing a tantrum). Hopefully the wheels continue to turn.

[Sgt Raven]

That?s true, but a significant number of those cases were because states are testing the limits of Bruen (or throwing a tantrum). Hopefully the wheels continue to turn.

Some States throwing Hissy Fits was expected after Bruen.

[JiuJitsu]

If I’m not mistaken there are oral arguments scheduled at the 9CA for preliminary injunctions for both CA handgun roster cases (Boland and Renna) on Aug 23rd. So, just about…



Unless they decide to issue a decision based on the briefs submitted. Who knows. Do we even know the judges for this panel yet?

[TruOil]

If I?m not mistaken there are oral arguments scheduled at the 9CA for preliminary injunctions for both CA handgun roster cases (Boland and Renna) on Aug 23rd. So, just about?



Unless they decide to issue a decision based on the briefs submitted. Who knows. Do we even know the judges for this panel yet?

There will be arguments unless both parties waive it. Which is unlikely. But since this is at an early stage of the litigation on a preliminary injunction, a decision should issue much more quickly that a full blown appeal.

[JiuJitsu]

Well something just occurred. It says ?Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for TRO AND Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney?.

But I don?t see any document available yet.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619597/renna-v-becerra/?order_by=desc

[AlmostHeaven]

Well something just occurred. It says "Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for TRO AND Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney".

But I don't see any document available yet.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...?order_by=desc

Court orders for non-emergency motions landed on a weekend? Odd.

[zeneffect]

I think someone got the axe

Rita B. Bosworth
(415) 510-3592
Fax: (415) 703-1234
California Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Ave.
Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED TERMINATED: 08/18/2023 (Aug. 18, 2023)