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

[Robotron2k84]

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.

An interlocutory appeal of the PI ruling is what JDoe is referring to? Or just that this is a Federal civil rights case that can be appealed to SCOTUS, later? An interlocutory appeal of the PI ruling would have to go to the Ninth, first, but is appealable up to SCOTUS.

To satisfy an appeal for the PI, plaintiffs would still need to prove all the qualifications for the injunction, which includes a sustained claim of immediate and irreparable harm.

Unfortunately, as I see it, there is no immediate and irreparable harm if the date for the fee is still in the future. San Jose has even hinted that implementation of the statute may wait for DC judgement before going into effect, so hard to see what relief a PI has in this case, at trial.

I’m not taking San Jose’s side, here. It’s clear that pushing out the implementation date is deliberate to counter plaintiff’s injunction request.

.

[mshill]

I don't know but using Surety Laws as an analogue seems to have been addressed on pages 48-49 of NYSRPA v Bruen. Me thinks someone forgot to read the decision.

All told, therefore, “[u]nder surety laws everyone started out with robust carrying rights” and only those reasonably accused were required to show a special need in order to avoid posting a bond. Ibid. These antebellum special-need requirements “did not expand carrying for the responsible; it shrank burdens on carrying by the (allegedly) reckless.” Ibid.

One Court of Appeals has nonetheless remarked that these surety laws were “a severe constraint on anyone thinking of carrying a weapon in public.” Young, 992 F. 3d, at 820.

[BAJ475]

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

YES.

[Robotron2k84]

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.

[abinsinia]

Yeah, you can see the lineage of this in the this order. I read the below and I thought it was over and plaintiff wins , but alas there are more steps,

Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on a finding that this
conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.

In this judges world the plain text doesn't matter. After this the judges pulls the rug out with surety nonsense.

[kuug]

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 read it, but it was creative reading. The judge claimed the law doesn't need to be a dead-ringer, and claimed the Bruen test only allows evaluating how Surety laws effected "self-defense".

The judge claimed it doesn't matter that it only applied to a small number of people.

[IVC]

Frustrating, but this is just a PI and it looks like the plaintiff wasn't sure about the argument they were making, the fees are not known at this time and the ripeness is in question due to the law not being in effect and the fees not being known. Too many loose ends for my taste and too much missing in the complaint.

Look at the analysis of surety statues. The argument should be not that they penalized those who were reckless, but that there was no fee of any kind for vast majority of people. Then, surety statues were not widely accepted, they were outliers. And, surety statues were about "bear," not "keep." Finally, what surety statues evolved into in the 19th century doesn't matter because it is wrong century for historical analysis. All of this is something that plaintiffs should've addressed if they were aiming for a PI.

As it stands, plaintiffs still get to do it right in the court, but they'll have to address all these issues they hadn't and which resulted in the denied PI.

To be clear, I see the judge's ruling as "activist" because I'm pretty sure she wouldn't let an "additional medical insurance for gay people just because they are gay" stand, but to fight in radically changed legal environment we can't be sloppy and expect the judges to do our work.

[IVC]

The judge claimed it doesn't matter that it only applied to a small number of people.

The judge addressed the issue of different people having different financial consequences based on their risk profile and matched it to how insurance works, where premium is risk-based.

It was our sides' duty to prevent this reasoning by distinguishing "bear" from "keep," by reiterating not only that the fee was individualized, but that regular people never had to pay anything, by showing that it was an outlier, etc.

Well, we get a do-over during the full trial, but we don't get the PI. Lesson learned (hopefully).

[abinsinia]

The judge addressed the issue of different people having different financial consequences based on their risk profile and matched it to how insurance works, where premium is risk-based.

It was our sides' duty to prevent this reasoning by distinguishing "bear" from "keep," by reiterating not only that the fee was individualized, but that regular people never had to pay anything, by showing that it was an outlier, etc.

Well, we get a do-over during the full trial, but we don't get the PI. Lesson learned (hopefully).

NAGR did do this, at least partly. The judge claimed it didn't matter if regular people didn't do it. The Judges claimed Breun analysis didn't take that into account.

Plaintiffs argue that surety laws are distinguishable because these laws imposed a financial burden only after “cause has been shown specific to the individual.” Pls.’ Suppl. Br. 4 (emphasis in original). The Insurance Requirement, they argue, would assume “every person is a danger” and apply to all San Jose gun owners, regardless of whether they have shown themselves to be high-risk. Pls.’ Suppl. Br. 4-5. This is certainly a fair distinction between surety laws and the Insurance Requirement but ultimately one that does not bear upon the metrics identified in Bruen.

Maybe NARG didn't hit this enough, but it seems they did enough to get the judge the address it.

[SkyHawk]

The judge addressed the issue of different people having different financial consequences based on their risk profile and matched it to how insurance works, where premium is risk-based.

Yeah, so now it is up to an underwriter to determine if we can afford to excercise our 2A rights. Complete and total BS.

[abinsinia]

If you don't pay they impound your gun.
An impounded gun can't be kept and you can't bear it.

[green grunt]

^ so they pull your info from "another list" ... and come for your personal property....not good at all :0

[Lanejsl]

If you don't pay they impound your gun.
An impounded gun can't be kept and you can't bear it.

But who takes it? LE? Will LE enforce?

[FreemanG]

But who takes it? LE? Will LE enforce?

Depends on who you are and what county you reside in as always