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

[ar15barrels]

The Ninth Circuit consolidated Boland and Renna

When?

They held 2 separate hearings yesterday with 2 separate case numbers.
If they were combined, it would have just one case number I would think and then everything from both cases would be fair game.

[ar15barrels]

Couldn't place my finger on it yesterday.

What really bugs me about Judge Berzon is she seems to be examining this case from the standpoint of "How can I uphold this excellent California gun law?" rather than "How can you (the State) prove to me your law is in full conformance with the Second Amendment?"

I think you put your finger on it perfectly.

[Ksmash01]

Couldn't place my finger on it yesterday. What really bugs me about Judge Berzon is she seems to be examining this case from the standpoint of "How can I uphold this excellent California gun law?" rather than "How can you (the State) prove to me your law is in full conformance with the Second Amendment?" I don't know how there is no internal mechanism for the judicial branch to reel in activists.

I think you put your finger on it perfectly.

I do like her response the state was asked "how was this a mandatory injunction?"...dude said "It would make us have to work(basically)" and she basically said that was status quo...

That alone sounded like she wasn't convinced of the state's argument that the PI was a MI that was done improperly.

I still think the state is gonna lose this one.

[AlmostHeaven]

When?

They held 2 separate hearings yesterday with 2 separate case numbers.
If they were combined, it would have just one case number I would think and then everything from both cases would be fair game.

Never mind. You are correct. I misinterpreted a previous post to mean the Ninth Circuit had consolidated the two cases.

[Dvrjon]

CRPA Post Mortem - Boland

[PrayForAmerica]

May someone refresh me on the status of Renna?

Looks like by the thread title, a PI was granted (against the whole roster?) and stayed until 3-31-23, buuuutttt.... That was a long time ago now.

(Side note, I started following 2A law on YouTube, then migrated over to Calguns, but next I need to learn how to read/where to find the court documents/updates. But I'm sorry, I do not know how to do that yet, and I have no idea where Renna stands)

[SpudmanWP]

The PI from the original District Court Judge is only on the Loaded Chamber Indicator, Magazine Disconnect Mechanism, Microstamping, and the 3-for-1 Removal provisions. The Roster as a whole was not part of the PI.
There was an appeal to the 9th and there was an oral argument hearing in August of 2023.
There is a Stay on the LCI and MCM, but not microstamping.
The appeals panel has not ruled on the PI.

[PrayForAmerica]

The PI from the original District Court Judge is only on the Loaded Chamber Indicator, Magazine Disconnect Mechanism, Microstamping, and the 3-for-1 Removal provisions. The Roster as a whole was not part of the PI.
There was an appeal to the 9th and there was an oral argument hearing in August of 2023.
There is no Stay and the appeals panel has not ruled on the PI.

Okay... So the specifics were enjoined, and the appeal was heard back in August. So just waiting for the 9th to (presumably) issue their formal/final ruling...

Am I understanding that correctly?

I wonder if a 3 judge panel heard it, or the whole court heard it... I need to learn how to look up these details.

[SpudmanWP]

The only thing that the 3-Judge panel heard was an appeal on the PI.
The cases themselves have not been decided by their respective Judges.
Only the PI was merged for Oral Arguments in front of the 3-Judge panel so there are still two separate cases at the District level.

[PrayForAmerica]

The PI from the original District Court Judge is only on the Loaded Chamber Indicator, Magazine Disconnect Mechanism, Microstamping, and the 3-for-1 Removal provisions. The Roster as a whole was not part of the PI.
There was an appeal to the 9th and there was an oral argument hearing in August of 2023.
There is no Stay and the appeals panel has not ruled on the PI.

Okay, great, I guess I tracked that correctly so far...

The only thing that the 3-Judge panel heard was an appeal on the PI.

As it is (as I understand?), the PI staying enforcement of those three roster elements is now active, and CA wants to stop the PI correct?

The cases themselves have not been decided by their respective Judges.
Only the PI was merged for Oral Arguments in front of the 3-Judge panel so there are still two separate cases at the District level.

Ahhhh I lost ya there. It has left the district level, and is now at the 9th Circuit level and going before a 3 judge panel correct? And they will decide to uphold/stay the PI? Or the PI and the entire Renna case is all being heard before the 3 judge panel?

Trying very hard to follow this... I will go back and read further at RosterLawsuit.com.

Hope that's the best place to be reading.

[SpudmanWP]

When a case is brought in court, the Plaintiff can ask for a Preliminary Injunction (ie a pause on the law) while the case is decided in its entirety. In these cases, each Judge issued a PI. The State appealed the PI to the 9th Circuit (a 3-judge panel). To save time, the 9th merged the Appeal of the two PIs into a single appeal. The State (at the start of the appeal) put a Stay on the PIs (a pause on the pause, I know, geesh) while the appeal is decided. The 9th held oral arguments on the appeal in August of 2023. The 9th has not ruled yet on the appeal.

Since this appeal is only on the PI, the respective District courts are still proceeding with their individual cases. If the 9th affirms the PI, the stay will be lifted and the LCM & MDM injunctions will be enforced while the trials continue. If the 9th reverses the PIs, the trials will continue under the environment we have now.

In either situation, the trials will continue until a ruling is reached. Yes, the State can appeal the PI to the En Banc panel and they can issue their own Stay pending their decision, and so on, and so on.

Hope that helped to understand.

[PrayForAmerica]

When a case is brought in court, the Plaintiff can ask for a Preliminary Injunction (ie a pause on the law) while the case is decided in its entirety. In these cases, each Judge issued a PI. The State appealed the PI to the 9th Circuit (a 3-judge panel).

Just the 3-judge panel... Okay interesting, I wonder what the leanings of those three were...

To save time, the 9th merged the Appeal of the two PIs into a single appeal.

Ahhh okay, only the appeal on the PI's of both cases were heard together... Kk makes sense...

The State (at the start of the appeal) put a Stay on the PIs (a pause on the pause, I know, geesh) while the appeal is decided.

I know right ha ha... Okay I'm following you though all the way...

The 9th held oral arguments on the appeal in August of 2023. The 9th has not ruled yet on the appeal.

Since this appeal is only on the PI, the respective District courts are still proceeding with their individual cases. If the 9th affirms the PI, the stay will be lifted and the LCM & MDM injunctions will be enforced while the trials continue. If the 9th reverses the PIs, the trials will continue under the environment we have now.

Ahhhh okay this is one element I missed. So the PI's were appealed up to the circuit court, but the district-level case in it's entirety is still continuing.

Okay dang...
= So whatever the district court decides (and it will take likely forever...),
= it will still likely/possibly go through the circuit-court and take another 5 years,
= all that before there is any chance for it to be appealed up to the Supreme Court... And who knows if they will have any interest in hearing it, or what the court composition will be at that time.

In either situation [whichever direction the PI appeal goes], the trials will continue [at the District level] until a ruling is reached. Yes, the State can appeal the PI to the En Banc panel and they can issue their own Stay pending their decision, and so on, and so on.

Hope that helped to understand.

Yes it does massively. I'll take another evening and just read ALL the Renna court paperwork.

Once I exhaust Renna, I'll move back over to Boland. I'm so greateful for Boland, but I'm especially hoping hoping hoping for Renna. Boland is getting the spotlight recently (and fairly so it seems), but I'm super hopeful this Iron Curtain is struck down in it's entirety at some point, and not merely elements of the Iron Curtain if that makes any sense...

[Sgt Raven]

The CA USH act and roster was easy to pass before they added the mag disco & LCI. I'd love for the whole thing to be gone. Going back to the original USH roster would get us most the current popular pistols. CA is too big of a market for the big players to not get them on the roster.

[AlmostHeaven]

The CA USH act and roster was easy to pass before they added the mag disco & LCI. I'd love for the whole thing to be gone. Going back to the original USH roster would get us most the current popular pistols. CA is too big of a market for the big players to not get them on the roster.

The pent-up demand for current-generation Glocks alone would generate a tsunami of sales.

[Mute]

It's absurd that we even argue that the roster has to do with safe/unsafe handguns. The fact that certain groups are exempted shows that it's complete nonsense. Or are they going to argue that the laws of mechanical engineering change in the hands of a LEO?