NAGR v. San Jose [ORAL Arguments set for , see post #134]

[Silence Dogood]

National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City Of San Jose
Northern District of California
Judge: Beth Labson Freeman
5:22-cv-00501


CourtListener Page - NAGR Case Page - NAGR 07/14/22 update

Video Update:

https://youtu.be/xelDsx5pn7Y

// 07-30-24 NOTICE of Oral Argument on Tues. Sept. 10, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. San Francisco Courtroom 3.
// 01-05-24 Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellants Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation, George Arrington and James Barry.
. . .
// 07-27-23 NOTICE by National Association for Gun Rights, Inc.
// 07-13-23 ORDER GRANTING 95 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART (order

[aileron]

I'm sorry not a lawyer, but does this actually put the NFA in jeopardy if this goes to the SC? Have they thought this through?

I mean they are basically trying to pull the same stunt of its just a tax. Which is a burden on a right. As an analogue - Because you speak in forums you must pay an annual tax for others bad/offensive/illegal speech and also pay this tax to educate the masses on improper/illegal/offensive speech.

If the SC was to strike this down... wouldn't that expose the NFA to the same/similar problem? I mean an undue burden of the right once established in this case?

[BAJ475]

I'm sorry not a lawyer, but does this actually put the NFA in jeopardy if this goes to the SC? Have they thought this through?

I mean they are basically trying to pull the same stunt of its just a tax. Which is a burden on a right. As an analogue - Because you speak in forums you must pay an annual tax for others bad/offensive/illegal speech and also pay this tax to educate the masses on improper/illegal/offensive speech.

If the SC was to strike this down... wouldn't that expose the NFA to the same/similar problem? I mean an undue burden of the right once established in this case?

IMHO the NFA is already exposed to an attack on this basis. See the Hoover vs ATF thread.

[nedro]

They should tax the 19th amendment.

[Silence Dogood]

I am most interested in seeing how the other side reacts to cases like this one that cite Bruen.

Additionally, what happens when judges accept weak anti-gun arguments in spite of recent precedent. The judge assigned to this case was an Obama appointee.

Plaintiffs have until 28JUL2022 to “respond to the substantive points in Brady’s amicus brief”.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62628339/national-association-for-gun-rights-inc-v-city-of-san-jose/

[curtisfong]

I think all these plaintiffs need to do a better job forum shopping.

[Lanejsl]

Gun Rights Group Loses Injunction Request In San Jose Ammo Tax Lawsuit

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.391018/gov.uscourts.cand.391018.72.0.pdf

[Robotron2k84]

How much of losing the PI is due to the implementation date being pushed out to December or next year?

[JDoe]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...91018.72.0.pdf

[SkyHawk]

How much of losing the PI is due to the implementation date being pushed out to December or next year?

Part of it was ripeness (the fee) but part of it (insurance) was due to the court thinking that text and history supports insurance for gun ownership and the plaintiffs are not likely to prevail. Hopefully they find out the hard way that is BS

[abinsinia]

The judge doesn't seem to understand what "history and tradition" means.

The Judge says this,

... the Ordinance prospectively would permit the impoundment of any non-compliant person’s firearm ...

Then later the Judges says,

In and of itself, a fee that is merely associated with owning a
firearm—and for which the failure to pay does not result in that ownership being revoked ..

So your gun can get impounded but it doesn't revoke your ownership.

[Roswell Saucer]

Mark Smith called it when NYSRPA came down that laws like this would be defended using surety statues from a billion years ago. Typical Democrat nonsense.

[Librarian]

This allows an appeal on up towards SCOTUS, yes?

Many steps yet before SCOTUS - this is the trial court, so a trial must happen before anything is around to start an appeals process.

[abinsinia]

The judge is suggesting the insurance requirement is close enough to the surety laws mentioned in Breun.

The judge ignored the fact that surety laws only applied to people who were identified as negligent.

The judge claimed the new "core" of the right is "self-defense" and so it doesn't matter that surety laws only applied to a small set of people, because both insurance and surety laws applied the same to the "core" of the right.

I'm adding "core" because that were it looks like it's going.

[Roswell Saucer]

The judge is suggesting the insurance requirement is close enough to the surety laws mentioned in Breun.

The judge ignored the fact that surety laws only applied to people who were identified as negligent.

The judge claimed the new "core" of the right is "self-defense" and so it doesn't matter that surety laws only applied to a small set of people, because both insurance and surety laws applied the same to the "core" of the right.

I'm adding "core" because that were it looks like it's going.

Next time SCOTUS issues a 2A opinion it should be 100 pages of copy/paste "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" because it seems that's the only way to get through the thick skulls of inferior court judges what the 2A means.