Defense Distributed v. Bonta

[GetMeCoffee]

Reply to opposition from Bonta,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...61550.16.0.pdf

I'm in awe of the sheer amount of authority cited in so few pages. I realize that SB 1327 is blatantly unconstitutional, so there is a lot of surface area to attack, but these guys methodically and thoroughly destroyed all of it.

So I expect the court to find in favor of the state and deny the PI...

Seriously, though, I think it's a really impressive brief, dense with authority.

[abinsinia]

Cf., e.g., Edwards v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 262 F.3d 856, 862 (9th Cir.
2001) (ban on wooden or plastic supports to signs carried during public assemblies
violated First Amendment; although content neutral, ban failed to leave open
alternative channels);

This section where they talk about a ban on wood supports for protest signs was pretty good.

[Fjold]

Judge George H. Wu was appointed by Bush

[flyer898]

In legal writing, I am a firm believer that less is more. A well written brief.

[command_liner]

Thanks for the brief reference at https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...61550.16.0.pdf

That is a pretty good beat-down of the state's position. But the state deserves that. The state is a combination of incompetent, intellectually lazy, in shock, in denial and unable to act. The state is completely dismissive of the idea that people have *rights*. There is so much inertia in the politics and legal positions of the state that no coherent response to the new landscape of Bruen is even possible.

We deserve to win on all points, and the state deserves to lose. Next up: go after each politician, sheriff and chief personally, and make them pay.

[abinsinia]

Tentative ruling on Preliminary Injunction.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550.19.0.pdf

tl;dr it was not granted.

[ritter]

Tentative ruling on Preliminary Injunction.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550.19.0.pdf

tl;dr it was not granted.

Ouch.

[abinsinia]

Looks like the judge claimed that the plain text has to cover the proposed behavior , and if it doesn't then it's not protect (i.e. threshold) ..

I don't think that's how Bruen works. I think it was just the plain text covers things which were presumptive lawful, but the historical analysis would have to be conducted regardless.

[ritter]

Looks like the judge claimed that the plain text has to cover the proposed behavior , and if it doesn't then it's not protect (i.e. threshold) ..

I don't think that's how Bruen works. I think it was just the plain text covers things which were presumptive lawful, but the historical analysis would have to be conducted regardless.

I agree. The judge clearly did not. I suppose we can expect similar from CA9.

I do think going after CNCs is a bit of a stretch currently. Need to get magazines, AWBs, rosters, permits, etc. nailed down first. Maybe then there will be sufficient case law for some of the more "nuanced" arguments. My personal view is, of course 2A protects building firearms. But there isn't much case law there yet. We haven't even made it past what Bruen requires of text.

[abinsinia]

I agree. The judge clearly did not. I suppose we can expect similar from CA9.

I do think going after CNCs is a bit of a stretch currently. Need to get magazines, AWBs, rosters, permits, etc. nailed down first. Maybe then there will be sufficient case law for some of the more "nuanced" arguments. My personal view is, of course 2A protects building firearms. But there isn't much case law there yet. We haven't even made it past what Bruen requires of text.

What's concerning is that every argument from the state is that the behavior is outside the bound of the second amendment. This judge swallow that line. I think it's made easier for this case because it's CNC machines and not a direct gun ban.

[ritter]

What's concerning is that every argument from the state is that the behavior is outside the bound of the second amendment. This judge swallow that line. I think it's made easier for this case because it's CNC machines and not a direct gun ban.

Agreed.

[M1A Rifleman]

Looks like the judge claimed that the plain text has to cover the proposed behavior , and if it doesn't then it's not protect (i.e. threshold) ..

I don't think that's how Bruen works. I think it was just the plain text covers things which were presumptive lawful, but the historical analysis would have to be conducted regardless.

A President Bush judge

[abinsinia]

A President Bush judge

During the Bush administration the Dem. Senators had blue slip privilege to veto judges in their circuits. Feinstein no-doubt helped Bush select some awful judges.

[Drivedabizness]

I too, was appalled by the judges reasoning.

As Heller made abundantly clear, just because the "plain text" doesn't say something, doesn't mean it's not protected.

For example, the 2A extends to ALL Modern arms, not just those available at the Founding.

The judge seems to be perpetuating the "unless its specifically protected, we can regulate it any way we want". That's not what Heller said and that's not what Bruen said.

[abinsinia]

Nutty quote from the judge,

DD – and apparently certain other courts – would like to treat the Supreme Court’s
Bruen opinion as a “word salad,” choosing an ingredient from one side of the “plate” and
an entirely-separate ingredient from the other, until there is nothing left whatsoever other
than an entirely-bulletproof and unrestrained Second Amendment.10

I was thinking that isn't it the point that protected rights are "bulletproof and unrestrained " ?