Defense Distributed v. Bonta

[command_liner]

Not too much coverage here at Calguns. New litigation as of Sept. 1, 2022, attacking AB1621 under obvious route due to the NYSRPA v. Bruen. SAF is running this one, and ZeroHedge.com is covering it as news.

There is no historical precedent for prohibiting people from making their own arms. So California does not have the power to pass a law to do so. It is hard to see where the state has any argument.

Am I missing other discussion of this case under another thread?

[Librarian]

Don't see it elsewhere. See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...-robert-bonta/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:22-cv-06200

Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...861550.1.0.pdf

and other things.

[command_liner]

What I find very interesting about this case is the very strong parallels to colonial era licensing of the press, and similar licenses that persist until to day in the UK. You need a "TV license" in the UK, and it is an annual tax. This seems absurd to us in the US, but is normal in the UK. Also in the UK the printing presses needed to be licensed -- similar to post WWII typewriter licenses in East Germany. The concept/phrase we call "freedom of the press" was based on press license cost and availability. In the US it is prohibited by the Constitution for the government to limit the number of press licenses or charge fees. Similar arguments and lines of reason apply to "freedom of religion", where colonials were charged a tax to pay for the Anglican ministers, even though they escaped England on a pilgramage to practice their own religion. No glebe and manse tax, and nothing like the jizya. Freedom of religion in the original context is freedom from tax or license of religion in exact parallelism to freedom on the press. Thus they are in the same First Amendment.

The Second Amendment expands on this concept, declaring the *right* to arms. No taxation or license permitted. With the new historical context analysis required by NYSRPA v. Bruen, the state has no chance here.

[SmallShark]

the state has no chance? are you new to California?

the AW ban laws mentions nothing about shotguns, but the state included shotguns.
the bullet button stay on, but on the actual letter with all the AWs listed, it doesnt have anything about BB

there are laws and state regulations. your argument is about the laws

What I find very interesting about this case is the very strong parallels to colonial era licensing of the press, and similar licenses that persist until to day in the UK. You need a "TV license" in the UK, and it is an annual tax. This seems absurd to us in the US, but is normal in the UK. Also in the UK the printing presses needed to be licensed -- similar to post WWII typewriter licenses in East Germany. The concept/phrase we call "freedom of the press" was based on press license cost and availability. In the US it is prohibited by the Constitution for the government to limit the number of press licenses or charge fees. Similar arguments and lines of reason apply to "freedom of religion", where colonials were charged a tax to pay for the Anglican ministers, even though they escaped England on a pilgramage to practice their own religion. No glebe and manse tax, and nothing like the jizya. Freedom of religion in the original context is freedom from tax or license of religion in exact parallelism to freedom on the press. Thus they are in the same First Amendment.

The Second Amendment expands on this concept, declaring the *right* to arms. No taxation or license permitted. With the new historical context analysis required by NYSRPA v. Bruen, the state has no chance here.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Enjoining Enforcement of AB 1621 and SB1327 filed by Plaintiffs Defense Distributed, Second Amendment Foundation. Motion set for hearing on 10/24/2022 at 08:30 AM before Judge George H. Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Proposed Order) (Reynolds, Michael) (Entered: 09/23/2022)

New docket entry,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550.14.0.pdf

[alowercaseq]

What's the difference between a machine that builds guns with serial numbers and a machine that builds guns without serial numbers?

How can you keep something that doesn't exist? That you cannot create or maintain?

How can you oppose the TRO of a law that took effect instantly with the claim that both sides need more time to come up with arguments?

How can you challenge the constitutionality of a law that hasn't been passed yet?

Clown world

[abinsinia]

New entry in the docket. It looks like some sort of response from the state.

Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Opposition to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Enjoining Enforcement of AB 1621 and SB1327 14 filed by Defendants Robert Bonta, Luis Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of SCW in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction with Exhibits A (including Joint Stipulation) through B, # 2 Declaration of Salvador Gonzalez in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction with Exhibit A, # 3 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice)(Woods, Sean) (Entered: 10/03/2022)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550.15.0.pdf

[BAJ475]

New entry in the docket. It looks like some sort of response from the state.

Link?

[foxtrotuniformlima]

Link?

Go to Librarian's post ( #2 ) - click on the first link then scroll down

[BAJ475]

Go to Librarian's post ( #2 ) - click on the first link then scroll down

Thanks!

[abinsinia]

I posted the link in post #7

[abinsinia]

This fee shifting deal seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

Nevertheless, by way of
this filing, Defendants inform the Court and Plaintiff on the record that they will
not seek attorneys’ fees pursuant to SB 1327

Here the state releases claim to the fees in the filing to the court.

[Flight4]

The Plaintiff response to the State is here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.692378/gov.uscourts.casd.692378.61.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

The Plaintiff response to the State is here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...92378.61.0.pdf

This is Renna , it's a different case.

[abinsinia]

Reply to opposition from Bonta,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550.16.0.pdf