Thread Collecting Post-Bruen Case Updates

[rplaw]

Wonder what the new scrutiny section will say, the old one did not age well

It almost looks like the Supremes read that part and said; Hmmm...

[Ocdlaw]

Yes. that analysis that the Assault Weapons Ban does not implicate Second Amendment rights because, essentially, there is no difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 regardless of the second step was ridiculous.

[timdps]

Seems like you might want to add the ANJRPC v. Buck (magazine case) and Bianchi v. Frosh cases, even though they are not specifically CA cases?

T

[CommieforniaResident]

Seems like you might want to add the ANJRPC v. Buck (magazine case) and Bianchi v. Frosh cases, even though they are not specifically CA cases?

T

They are outside the Ninth Circuit so even a positive and final decision there won't affect us. Cases in other 9th Circuit states like HI and WA are relevant since a federal appellate decision there will affect CA law, but not a decision for NJ or Maryland.

[CommieforniaResident]

Does anyone else here besides me have the class to add Nichols?

Or will this be another thread where everything but the Nichols case is acknowledged?

I'm going to let someone else do it just to find out. Paladin perhaps?

=8-)

I'm unfamiliar with that case. Can you post the caption? I'll add it if it's a 9th Circuit appellate case or a 9th District Court case that's issuing an injunction or a TRO. Also, I'm not adding right to carry cases here based on good cause requirements, but will for challenges to good moral character/psych. testing/etc. since the CA AG made clear good cause won't be enforced.

[CommieforniaResident]

I'll put it to you this way...

You are likely the third person here who has tried to put a together a case tracker thread...

...and like the first two, ignore Nichols and Zeleny.

And none other than Gun Owners California does the same.

At least Michel is professional enough to inlude it on his listing.

There is no way in hell that people can be aware of Young v. Hawaii and Flanagan v. Harris and NOT be aware of Nichols v. (Brown, Harris, Becerra, etc.)

There's a triple reason for it.

=8-(

Just looked it up. It looks like Nichols v. Newsom is an open carry case in CA. I'll add this to the thread since you seem so insistent on it and perhaps others want to know what's going on there.

[CommieforniaResident]

https://casetext.com/case/zeleny-v-newsom

Also, Zeleny v. Newsom

A combo case (1A / 2A) that has turned into something of hot glue to local authorities. Everything they try to do get rid of him, everything to do to try to get his case dismissed or motions dismissed...just don't seem to get anywhere.

=8-|

That looks like a very interesting combination of a 1A and 2A case. And it actually looks like he just got a million bucks. Definitely feel free to create a post and keep it updated under this thread!

[SilveradoColt21]

Is there no case for a challenge on the CA gun roster?

[abinsinia]

Is there no case for a challenge on the CA gun roster?

Renne in post #10

[Lanejsl]

Renne in post #10

Conference scheduled for 7/29

[meanrock]

@commieforniaresident - RE: Miller V. Bonta

2022-7-11: Opposition to Motion to Lift Stay and Motion to Vacate and Remand for Further Proceedings

2022-7-12: Parties’ Joint Status Report

2022-7-18: Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Reply to Defendants-Appellants’ Opposition to Lift Stay

[TruOil]

A very nice, well supported argument. Appellees should prevail and the stay lifted, and the 9th should address the case on its merits without remand, as the relevant history was adduced in the trial court the first time around. Unless this is a conservative panel (which actually does happen) it will be interesting to see how the panel will try to wiggle out of this one--and if it can't, how the en banc panel will justify a ban.

Sorry, after Young, I can't help but be cynical. Just as the State is revolting against Bruen by enacting even more outrageous and unconstitutional restrictions, it is hard for me to believe that a liberal 9th will not follow suit.

[TruOil]

A very nice, well supported argument. Appellees should prevail and the stay lifted, and the 9th should address the case on its merits without remand, as the relevant history was adduced in the trial court the first time around. Unless this is a conservative panel (which actually does happen) it will be interesting to see how the panel will try to wiggle out of this one--and if it can't, how the en banc panel will justify a ban.

Sorry, after Young, I can't help but be cynical. Just as the State is revolting against Bruen by enacting even more outrageous and unconstitutional restrictions, it is hard for me to believe that a liberal 9th will not follow suit.

[CommieforniaResident]

@commieforniaresident - RE: Miller V. Bonta

2022-7-11: Opposition to Motion to Lift Stay and Motion to Vacate and Remand for Further Proceedings

2022-7-12:

2022-7-18:

Updated, thanks. I'm pretty busy currently so I would appreciate if others could make these kinds of updates for me to put in--it's a lot of cases to cover.

[CGZ]

Miller v. Bonta

2022-8-1: Appellants’ motion to vacate the judgment challenged in this appeal and to remand for further proceedings is granted