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

[Rickybillegas]

Appeals court is now asking for briefs both parties on how the Rahimi decision will affect interpretation of the contested issues.

2024-06-21-Order-Requesting-Supp-Briefs-re-Rahimi.pdf (michellawyers.com)

[7.62mm_fmj]

[Rickybillegas]

Those are good points you make about the decision, but this lawsuit is about 'sensitive places'. Unfortunately, as we scramble to unravel the implications of Rahimi, as people are pointing out, Roberts' opinion seems to open the door to a more imprecise meaning of 'historical analogues' stating that a historical twin is not required, only a proper analogue. This is what these state AG's mischief is all about, insisting that anything vaguely similar to a prohibition justifies a prohibition. They want to stretch the historical laws to extreme for their purposes. Of course, they also want to use local and post 14th amendment regulations for their 'analogues' too.
I have not read the entire decision, but others are voicing worries that Rahimi further obscures the lines of a proper analogue rather than clarifies. The states will try to use this to their advantage and could give the courts
an excuse to go along. But, we shall see.

It will be interesting therefore to see plaintiffs brief to counter this potential conundrum.

[abinsinia]

There were supplemental briefs filed on the 7/12.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-07-12-Appellants-Supp-Brief.pdf

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-07-12-Appellees-Supp-Brief.pdf

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-07-12-Appellees-Marco-Carraleros-Supp-Brief-re-US-v.-Rahimi.pdf

[4SUPER9]

My apologies, it has been a while, and my brain is full. I can't remember everything that remains enjoined and what the 9th stayed.
I am going backpacking in a national forest (Inyo). It is my understanding that I am allowed to LCC (licensed concealed carry) throughout my trip. Is that correct?

[9Cal_OC]

Yes

[guntrust]

My apologies, it has been a while, and my brain is full. I can't remember everything that remains enjoined and what the 9th stayed.
I am going backpacking in a national forest (Inyo). It is my understanding that I am allowed to LCC (licensed concealed carry) throughout my trip. Is that correct?

For a list of enjoined parts:

https://lawnews.tv/fed-judge-enjoins-unconstitutional-ca-concealed-carry-place-restrictions/

[Rickybillegas]

Germane to this lawsuit is the hysteria AG's around the country and including Bonta (of course) have rushed to post authority letters insisting that Rahimi ruled that an exact historical twin is not required. This they shout is justification for their sensitive place laws. However, BRUEN already established that principal long before Rahimi;

"On the other hand, analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative his torical analogue, not a historical twin. So even if a modern day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster." BRUEN PAGE 21

So this is ABSOLUTLEY nothing new whatsoever. Moreover, in that same breath (page 22, 23) the opinion goes on to argue (in light of the above bolded principal), that sensitive places must be few and far between, otherwise it eviscerates the basic principal of the right to keep and bear.

"BRUEN page 22

In other words, ignore one part of the opinion at the peril of negating the part you like.

[4SUPER9]

I believe the 9th ruled on this today, allowing the ban in many “sensitive “ places, but not all. I am disappointed overall, but at least glad they did not allow the private property portion to go through.

Question: what defines a “park”? Can I still carry in national parks or forests?

[Palmaris]

I believe the 9th ruled on this today, allowing the ban in many “sensitive “ places, but not all. I am disappointed overall, but at least glad they did not allow the private property portion to go through.

Question: what defines a “park”? Can I still carry in national parks or forests?

found on CRPA

[abinsinia]

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Plaintiffs All Defendants amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,,, 1, filed by Plaintiffs Sheldon Hough, Barry Bahrami, Anthony Miranda, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Reno May, Gun Owners of America, Liberal Gun Owners Association, Isabelle R. Barretto, Eric Hans, Andrew Harms, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Inc., Pete Stephenson, Gary Brennan, Jose Flores, Oscar A. Barretto, Jr(Moros, Konstadinos) (Entered: 03/03/2025)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.898535/gov.uscourts.cacd.898535.65.0.pdf

[4SUPER9]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...98535.65.0.pdf

Very well written. Shows the complete absurdity of this bill. What happens now?

[abinsinia]

Very well written. Shows the complete absurdity of this bill. What happens now?

I think next there has to be a response from California to this amended complaint..

[Rickybillegas]

Unfortunately the trial judge assigned does not appear first glance favorable to our cause. (Monica Ramirez Almadani). Unless the case is re-assigned.
We can only be hopeful for an objective dispassionate review of the case.
Stranger things have happened such as Judge Kobayashi (Obama appt.) in the Wolford case.

[abinsinia]

Unfortunately the trial judge assigned does not appear first glance favorable to our cause. (Monica Ramirez Almadani). Unless the case is re-assigned.
We can only be hopeful for an objective dispassionate review of the case.
Stranger things have happened such as Judge Kobayashi (Obama appt.) in the Wolford case.

Yeah it's a Biden judge so I wouldn't expect a good opinion in the case.