CRPA Gun Show Lawsuit Filed

[pacrat]

FILING

https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022-08-12-Complaint-w.out-exhibits.pdf

Late last week, CRPA, in concert with B&L Productions, Second Amendment Foundation and Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, filed suit to repeal the ban on gun shows at the state-owned Orange County Fairgrounds. More details and the filing itself can be found at CRPA's News page.

Despite getting roundly defeated by CRPA, SAF, GOC, and others in lawsuit that invalidated a ban on gun shows at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in federal court in 2019, Min, pushed by gun-owner-hating Gavin Newsom, tried to get around the First Amendment issues that caused the court to strike down the Del Mar gun show ban. In seeking other ways to essentially ban gun shows, they came up with SB 264 -- which bans the sale of guns and ammo on the property, rather than banning the gun show itself.

[command_liner]

Some of us went to the long-ago trial in the federal court house in SF and watched the state attorney explain how it would be fine to have gun shows in county-owned locations -- given a long list of conditions. I think those conditions have been met now with Bruen.

Chuck M was there with us. I have not read the filing, but it sure would be a thousand types of awesome to quote the state's own reasoning back to them.

[FreshTapCoke]

I am happy I finally started contributing to the CRPA. I should not have waited so long and will be making up for lost time.

[abinsinia]

I think this case was dismissed on Aug. 18th

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.718348/gov.uscourts.casd.718348.35.0.pdf

[steel]

It's not over yet. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend portions of the complaint. The first amended complaint must be filed by 8-31-22.

Judge Battaglia was appointed by Obama. Let's see if he has the integrity to respect Bruen and do his job.

[abinsinia]

Sep 16, 2022 Extension of Time to File Document AND Extending Time to Answer (More than 30 days)

Extension filed on this case.

[WWDHD?]

All I ever hear about regarding this subject is Del Mar and Orange Co Fairgrounds. What about the Cow Palace- another State owned facility?

[abinsinia]

Looks like the extension was granted.

ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT 14 by Judge John W. Holcomb. The Court hereby GRANTS the motion and orders as follows; The time to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Complaint for the Stipulating Defendants is extended to 11/14/2022. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See document for further details) (yl) (Entered: 09/19/2022)

[abinsinia]

I think a longer extension was granted or requested,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.860016/gov.uscourts.cacd.860016.16.1.pdf

[Liberty Rules]

I think this case was dismissed on Aug. 18th

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...18348.35.0.pdf

I am not familiar with this case, but I can tell you that the case document in the link is for a different case. Every pleading filed with a court identifies the case by its number: The dismissal document in your link is from Case 3:21-cv-01718-AJB-KSC. Case numbers include the year the complaint was filed. In that case, it was filed in 2021 (3:21...).

The case referenced in the original post above was filed in 2022. Its case number is 8:22-cv-01518 JWH (JDEx).

They are different cases. In addition, the three letter groupings in the case numbers are the initials of the judges and magistrates assigned to the case. In the 2021 case it is Judge Anthony J. Battaglia ("AJB"). In the 2022 case, the judge is John W. Holcomb ("JWH").

[abinsinia]

I am not familiar with this case, but I can tell you that the case document in the link is for a different case. Every pleading filed with a court identifies the case by its number: The dismissal document in your link is from Case 3:21-cv-01718-AJB-KSC. Case numbers include the year the complaint was filed. In that case, it was filed in 2021 (3:21...).

The case referenced in the original post above was filed in 2022. Its case number is 8:22-cv-01518 JWH (JDEx).

They are different cases. In addition, the three letter groupings in the case numbers are the initials of the judges and magistrates assigned to the case. In the 2021 case it is Judge Anthony J. Battaglia ("AJB"). In the 2022 case, the judge is John W. Holcomb ("JWH").

Here's the court listener case link where I found the document.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64890788/b-l-productions-inc-v-gavin-newsom/

[Liberty Rules]

Here's the court listener case link where I found the document.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...-gavin-newsom/

That's for the 2022 case which this thread is about. The other link you provided to the dismissal decision is for a different case that was filed in 2021.

[abinsinia]

That's for the 2022 case which this thread is about. The other link you provided to the dismissal decision is for a different case that was filed in 2021.

The document link is from the docket Entry #16 attachment 1.

[Liberty Rules]

The document link is from the docket Entry #16 attachment 1.

Sorry but you're mixing up your posts. I wrote about (and quoted) your post which is #4 in the thread. In that one, you linked to a 2021 case's order of dismissal and suggested that this 2022 case had already been dismissed. I explained why that is incorrect and that they are two different cases.

Now, in reply, you are talking about a different post later in the thread in which you linked to the extension of time in the 2022 case.

[abinsinia]

Sorry but you're mixing up your posts. I wrote about (and quoted) your post which is #4 in the thread. In that one, you linked to a 2021 case's order of dismissal and suggested that this 2022 case had already been dismissed. I explained why that is incorrect and that they are two different cases.

Now, in reply, you are talking about a different post later in the thread in which you linked to the extension of time in the 2022 case.

Post #11 is a link to the docket, and post #4 is a link to a document from the docket link in #11. It's docket entry 16 attachment 1.

You explained this #4 document is a different case, then I provided the docket where you can find the document I posted. As far as I know this case is the one in post #11.