May v. Bonta - Challenge to SB2 consolidated with Carralero, ORAL ARGS April 2024

[Rickybillegas]

Very informative. Thank you.
As far as the strip mall argument goes, some malls allocate specific spots to the area immediately adjacent to a specific business, and in other malls it is a free-for-all. Without such signs, I would be inclined to think any spot in the lot or "area" would be subjected to the vampire rule. I would personally be fearful of testing this theory out, as someone like Gascon would be thrilled to prosecute me, just on the spirit of being equitable.

The reason why this issue may be extremely important down the road is that if the upcoming decision is a split one, it will probably create a whole new set of ridiculous issues.

For example, lets say the 'vampire rule' is enjoined, but banks and medical offices are not (somewhat likely given the 9th panel). So I go to a shopping mall where it would be perfectly legal to carry. BUT, if there is a bank, or a medical office (even a frick'n dentist) by that reasoning you cannot carry from your car to the grocery store. In other words useless. That is why I say that parking area does not mean parking lot by definition.

Now two things our side (pro Attorneys) need to argue before the court.

1. If the court does not strike down the entire law of sensitive places, this parking area vs parking lot needs to be clarified to allow carry in the parking lot not immediately adjacent to the sensitive place.

2. Better yet, the whole parking lot thing needs to be enjoined for obvious reasons, at least in the case of business services such as banks, medical and liquor establishments.

3. Better yet (I know that's three) enjoin the whole frick'n thing!

[4SUPER9]

Your acceptance of so-called common sense gun laws is what has brought us to where we are with all this. To some, it is common sense that weapons should only be transported (under lock and key) to approved, controlled and regulated firing ranges, with no deviation whatsoever permitted. It may be common sense that all weapons stored in homes be locked up to prevent unauthorized access. It may be common sense that a citizen only be allowed to own five firearms at one time, or to possess twenty rounds of ammunition for each. So much for common sense, but you are OK with it from my reading of your post. See what I did with it?

Not what I said. I am in favor of common sense laws, such as making sure a firearm is not accessible to a child. Unfortunately, most gun laws here are NOT common sense, and every time I hear a politician use this term, I know it is a crock, and almost only applies to law abiding citizens.

[Drivedabizness]

Not what I said. I am in favor of common sense laws, such as making sure a firearm is not accessible to a child. Unfortunately, most gun laws here are NOT common sense, and every time I hear a politician use this term, I know it is a crock, and almost only applies to law abiding citizens.

No, you're not. But you do you.

[BAJ475]

Not what I said. I am in favor of common sense laws, such as making sure a firearm is not accessible to a child.

While I fully agree that firearms should not be accessible to children without adult supervision, just how would a "common sense law" accomplish that? How would a "common sense gun law" accomplish anything more than present laws making one responsible for their negligent and reckless acts?

Unfortunately, most gun laws here are NOT common sense, and every time I hear a politician use this term, I know it is a crock, and almost only applies to law abiding citizens.

[guntrust]

Not what I said. I am in favor of common sense laws, such as making sure a firearm is not accessible to a child. Unfortunately, most gun laws here are NOT common sense, and every time I hear a politician use this term, I know it is a crock, and almost only applies to law abiding citizens.

Fortunately, for any child needing a gun for self-defense, the law is not common sense.

Despite widespread opinion that guns must be locked up around kids, there is no state law (last time i checked) mandating such storage. Only potential criminal (as well as civil) liability if a kid accesses and misuses. And even there, an exception where kid uses in self-defense.

My advice continues to be: gun-proof the kid, rather than try to child-proof the gun.

[SpudmanWP]

Not to mention that Heller already ruled that mandatory safe storage is unconstitutional.
Those that exist elsewhere will be challenged nationwide in an upcoming wave of cases.

[Interpol]

I am actually in favor of "common sense" gun laws. The problem is, most of the laws in Cali have no common sense. This is just ridiculous, and as the PI said, "repugnant".

The problem is, there's no legal definition of "common sense". It's entirely arbitrary. What may be considered common sense to others may not be to you or me.

Stop using the term. There is nothing "common sense" about any law. The term was coined by ignorant tyrants at Moms Demand Action, Brady, Giffords, and Everytown to label pro-2A advocates as lacking common sense. If these organizations really cared about gun safety they'd be promoting more gun safety education and training, not infringement of 2A rights.

[TruOil]

The problem is, there's no legal definition of "common sense". It's entirely arbitrary. What may be considered common sense to others may not be to you or me.

Stop using the term. There is nothing "common sense" about any law. The term was coined by ignorant tyrants at Moms Demand Action, Brady, Giffords, and Everytown to label pro-2A advocates as lacking common sense. If these organizations really cared about gun safety they'd be promoting more gun safety education and training, not infringement of 2A rights.

Very true. Every Democrat pol says that his/her bill seeks "common sense" gun laws, but not one of them have ever, EVER I SAY, taken the time to explain exactly what is so common sense about their proposed law. Grossly generalizing them, all seem predicated on the "common sense" proposition that "more guns equals more gun crimes." Therefore, eliminating guns will reduce crime. We used to hear this all the time from the police chiefs and Sheriffs in So.Cal as the reason they refused to issue CCWS, yet when pressed in deposition, not one of them had done any research or read any study that empirically supported their "common sense" proposition.

[Rickybillegas]

Very true. Every Democrat pol says that his/her bill seeks "common sense" gun laws, but not one of them have ever, EVER I SAY, taken the time to explain exactly what is so common sense about their proposed law. Grossly generalizing them, all seem predicated on the "common sense" proposition that "more guns equals more gun crimes." Therefore, eliminating guns will reduce crime. We used to hear this all the time from the police chiefs and Sheriffs in So.Cal as the reason they refused to issue CCWS, yet when pressed in deposition, not one of them had done any research or read any study that empirically supported their "common sense" proposition.

Yeah, tell that to the people in Ohio who just passed constitutional carry in June '22 and rather than the result being 'blood in the streets', crime has actually gone down since enacting this bill.

[ritter]

A new May response brief filed.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-02-16-Appellees-Answering-Brief.pdf

[TruOil]

A new May response brief filed.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ring-Brief.pdf

The brief does a good job refuting the State's arguments and citations--especially the misleading ones for which the AG is well known in 2A litigation.

[BAJ475]

The brief does a good job refuting the State's arguments and citations--especially the misleading ones for which the AG is well known in 2A litigation.

Agree. It is very well written.

[WithinReason]

Very detailed. A comprehensive refutation. Nicely done!

[Rickybillegas]

Very detailed. A comprehensive refutation. Nicely done!

That was the Carralero team brief.

Mr. Moros says their (May v Bonta) brief due soon.
That should be good too.

[Rickybillegas]

From CRPA latest brief (not yet logged into filings) in response to Bonta et all brief filed 1/19/24.

“Though the State has marshalled a small army of historians, their evidence often supports Plaintiffs’ arguments,” argues the brief. “California fails to show that any of its proffered analogues are sufficiently widespread within the relevant time period—the Founding era—or relevantly similar in ‘how’ and ‘why’ they burden the right to self-defense. Indeed, most of the challenged locations existed in some form at the Founding, and Plaintiffs are not aware of any tradition of carry bans there—nor, importantly, has California offered any such tradition.”