CRPA Gun Show Lawsuit Filed

[abinsinia]

NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 6, 2024 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 1 - Scheduled Location: Pasadena CA

View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here.

NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you are expected to appear in person at the Courthouse. If an in person appearance would pose a hardship, you must file a motion for permission to appear remotely by video, using ACMS filing type Motion to Appear Remotely for Oral Argument. Such a motion must be filed within 7 days of this notice, absent exigent circumstances. Everyone appearing in person must review and comply with our Protocols for In Person Hearings, available here. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you directly at least two weeks before the set argument date to review any requirements for in person appearance or to make any necessary arrangements for a remote appearance that has been approved or directed by the panel.

Please note that if you do file a motion to appear remotely, the court strongly prefers video over telephone appearance. Therefore, if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to justify that request in your motion and receive explicit permission to do so.

Be sure to review the GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing.

If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in ACMS no later than 28 days before the hearing date. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [23-3793] [Entered: 12/24/2023 06:18 AM]

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/view/?caseno=23-3793

[Liberty Rules]

The oral arguments before the 9th Circuit merits panel were held today. Below is the link to the video of the hearing. This case starts at 47 minutes in. I have not listened to the whole hearing yet so have no comments on substance of the hearing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxICzXeJ4qw&t=3s

[abinsinia]

Two Biden judges, and one horrible Hawaii judge.

[abinsinia]

3-0 loss. they will use interest balancing, and claim that you can just go down the street and buy a guns etc..

[AlmostHeaven]

3-0 loss. they will use interest balancing, and claim that you can just go down the street and buy a guns etc..

It is sad how the outcome depends not on the law, but instead on the judges. The trials and hearings are meaningless performances.

[Sgt Raven]

I think this is the same case.

[AlmostHeaven]

Has the the Ninth Circuit also placed a hold pending Duncan v. Bonta, or has the case simply gone into purgatory due to the 3-judge panel writing an opinion?

[Ishooter]

Is this the same case?
ttps://ktla.com/news/california/u-s-9th-circuit-court-upholds-californias-gun-sale-restrictions/

[Librarian]

Is this the same case?
ttps://ktla.com/news/california/u-s-9th-circuit-court-upholds-californias-gun-sale-restrictions/

Yes.

See Kostas Moros on X, https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1800599539902279753

OK, we got our expected terrible ruling in B&L Productions v. Bonta, our challenge to two gun show bans (we won one and lost one in the district courts, and they were consolidated on appeal). A thread on this awful ruling that re-implements interest balancing, and also manages to do damage to the First Amendment.

and
[QUOTE]

This is incredibly bad faith. So under this panel's read of the law, the gun show can exist and do everything EXCEPT the buyer accepting the sale offer. But obviously, how would that even work? Would you just stare at gun offers to maybe buy later, and then plainclothes DOJ

narcs are walking around in case anyone says "oh wow, I agree to buy this gun!", and then shutdown the show?[/QUOTE]

((Weird - forum insists on inserting an extra set of [endquote][startquote] tags, and I can't get rid of them!))

[abinsinia]

Here's the actual ruling,

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-06-11-Opinion-1.pdf

[abinsinia]

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge John W. Holcomb: In view of the issuance of the Mandate [ECF No. 64], the parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer forthwith regarding the posture of the case and to file a Joint Status Report no later October 11, 2024, that advises the Court regarding the posture of the case and a proposed case schedule. If the parties cannot agree on a case schedule, then the parties shall provide the Court with (a) the parties' respective proposed case schedules; (b) each party's justification therefor; and (c) each party's objections to the other party's proposed case. A Scheduling Conference is SET for Friday, October 25, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. Counsel for the parties are DIRECTED to appear in person in Courtroom 9D, on the 9th Floor of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse at 411 W. Fourth Street Santa Ana, California, at that date and time. IT IS SO ORDERED.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cla) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/26/2024)

Resent order at the district court level.

[Sgt Raven]