Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism > Temp Post-Duncan Mag Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:10 PM
thayne's Avatar
thayne thayne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Judge Benitez should reschedule the ex parte for mid-July, and then take it under submission. California judges have to render a decision within 90 days after taking something under submission; federal judges have no time limits.
He should put the stay request on hold pending the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York case haha!
__________________
Quote:
"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:11 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,489
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

I've been reading the memorandum arguments and it appears as if they are simply restating the case they just received a ruling on. I can't imagine any kind of logic to the idea that a judge should stay their own decision because of a public safety risk when the State of CA just was told that this law is unconstitutional.

All I can think is that Benitez is being put under insane political pressure right now, essentially they are trying to cow him. For a judge to rule on Friday that a law violates the constitution and for him to then stay that judgement a few days later because the AG restates that standard capacity magazines are a health hazard and the State can't recover from the reality that no one can stop the influx..........

It's a merry-go round argument. Benitez clearly opens his judgement with the concept that NOT having standard capacity magazines is the public health threat.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:13 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,044
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
All I can think is that Benitez is being put under insane political pressure right now, essentially they are trying to cow him.
I have no doubt he is a pariah now. The cynic in me expects a #metoo accusation to take him down like they did Kozinski.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:13 PM
Den60's Avatar
Den60 Den60 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 815
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MC06 View Post
Pftt, irreparable injury.
I would argue that we Californian's have suffered the injury, it is our Constitutional rights that the State have trampled on. Hopefully, Benitez stays firm, takes some time to review it, and says "no."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:14 PM
Den60's Avatar
Den60 Den60 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 815
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For those attorneys on here, do the plaintiffs have the ability to argue against a stay?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:15 PM
email email is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,433
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

We need to “preserve the status quo”.

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:18 PM
caliguy93's Avatar
caliguy93 caliguy93 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: North Koreafornia
Posts: 1,329
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiego619 View Post
BUT!!

It says... It is enough if the person has [control over it] [or] [the right to control it]

So even if someone steals my package, or it is in the mail, I still have the right to control it, since it is mine.
you also need possession.. dont forget that part
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:20 PM
blubullett blubullett is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 326
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Jestice arms has this on their site: "All shipments are F.O.B shipping point. Contact us if you need insurance on your order. F.O.B shipping point implies terms of sale under which title of goods passes to the buyer at the point of shipment."
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:20 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 13,563
iTrader: 159 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pewpew9 View Post
You guys realize this is a public forum right?
Skimming the previous two threads, where everybody declared they're ordering "ALL THE MAGS. EVERY SINGLE ONE", it's not that hard to estimate the scope of things. Also, there are many guesstimates by calgunners all over this forum
This ruling has brought a lot of formerly banned users out of hiding I see.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:20 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,044
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Den60 View Post
For those attorneys on here, do the plaintiffs have the ability to argue against a stay?
They will no doubt respond.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:26 PM
SVGUY SVGUY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 133
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
So assuming the judge waits until the 5th and shoots it down, he would appeal to the 9th and could get a stay by the 9th of April? Does that sound about right?
Already went to the 9th 3 judge panel who also supported judges reasoning for reversing the ban. So there isn't much support so far on the 9th. Strange I know but this already happened.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:30 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,160
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Den60 View Post
For those attorneys on here, do the plaintiffs have the ability to argue against a stay?
Most legal proceedings are done based on pre-set timetables. Ex parte essentially means that there is some sort of emergency situation that requires you to go into court for immediate relief, setting aside those normal time tables. In all but the most extreme circumstances, you are required to inform the other counsel the day ahead you'll be going into court to request this extraordinary relief so they have a chance to respond orally by appearing at the hearing (at the very least). Sometimes, if you're an attorney who gets an ex parte notice against your client at 10 am the prior day, you'll end up working late into the night to research unusual issues and draft a response that you can hand to the judge for their review the next morning.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:31 PM
glilon glilon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 409
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baekacaek View Post
The funny part is that even mags that were acquired after the stay is granted are impossible to identify, especially if you went to Reno or Vegas and bought them with cash. Previously, if you owned something that was manufactured after 2000, like the PMags, then you'd be in trouble because there's no way you could've owned it prior to 2000.

But now, anything manufactured prior to 2019 is safe. This essentially reset the manufacture-test clock from 2000 to 2019. All these PMags are up for grabs.
Exactly! Even if they closed the door next week, you could stockpile 100,000 in Nev. or Ariz. and bring them in at your leisure. No way to prove they weren't bought during the safe period.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:33 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,160
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVGUY View Post
Already went to the 9th 3 judge panel who also supported judges reasoning for reversing the ban. So there isn't much support so far on the 9th. Strange I know but this already happened.
Not quite. It was a 2-1 decision. I am almost certain N.R. Smith would vote to uphold. John Clifford Wallace, although a Mormon and a Republican, is almost certain to vote to overturn. The wildcard is whoever the third judge is. In the preliminary injunction round it was a far-left retired judge from New York sitting by designation (special appointment). I'm not sure if she will be on the panel this time, but if she is, it is conceivable she votes to overturn despite supporting the preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction can only be overturned if a very high burden is met. A final appealable order can be overturned much easier.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:36 PM
Den60's Avatar
Den60 Den60 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 815
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Most legal proceedings are done based on pre-set timetables. Ex parte essentially means that there is some sort of emergency situation that requires you to go into court for immediate relief, setting aside those normal time tables. In all but the most extreme circumstances, you are required to inform the other counsel the day ahead you'll be going into court to request this extraordinary relief so they have a chance to respond orally by appearing at the hearing (at the very least). Sometimes, if you're an attorney who gets an ex parte notice against your client at 10 am the prior day, you'll end up working late into the night to research unusual issues and draft a response that you can hand to the judge for their review the next morning.
At least twice as part of my custody proceedings (I gained custody of my child years previously) my ex's lawyer filed ex-parte without giving my attorney of record notice. But, this looks to be a different situation, I just wanted to know if the plaintiffs will be heard as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:40 PM
Turbinator's Avatar
Turbinator Turbinator is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 11,652
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blubullett View Post
Jestice arms has this on their site: "All shipments are F.O.B shipping point. Contact us if you need insurance on your order. F.O.B shipping point implies terms of sale under which title of goods passes to the buyer at the point of shipment."
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am some guy who happens to deal a lot with purchase contracts, Incoterms, determining when title transfers, logistics, import, export, blah blah.

In business, we sign agreements with customers that state Incoterms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterms

These terms dictate various aspects of commercial terms, but the terms of interest in our case are the terms that outline when title transfers from the Seller to the Buyer.

In most cases for my line of work, we agree ExWorks terms with customers. This means that all the Seller needs to do is make the goods available at a named destination (usually the Seller's loading or shipping docks), then title transfers. The Buyer needs to arrange a carrier for pickup and transportation. Should the goods get damaged on the docks, the Seller is not liable for anything, as the title will have deemed passed to the Buyer once the goods were delivered to the loading docks.

In the case of our consumer purchases from various vendors, I don't know what terms would typically prevail as sellers don't normally specify terms. Per the website quote below, this particular vendor uses Free on Board terms (FOB). These terms are usually used when shipping by sea is the mode of transport, and per Wiki, FOB terms are often incorrectly applied to other forms of transportation. Boiling it down, FOB terms state that the Seller must deliver the goods to a specified port & transport vessel, then title transfers to the Buyer. For our example, that means the vendor would need to deliver to USPS / UPS / FedEx / etc, make sure the package gets on to a truck / plane / etc, and then title will have deemed to have been transferred to the Buyer.

As a key note, once title has transferred, risk of loss is also transferred. You can't claim to have title to property but also expect the Seller to compensate you if the parcel is lost in transit. In most cases, consumers expect the Seller to actually confirm delivery of a product before the Buyer will accept that the product was received. Buyers typically expect compensation from a Seller if a product is not received from a Seller. That's just how consumer purchases tend to work.

It's semi complicated, but once you understand how Incoterms works, it's not too hard.

Turby
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:41 PM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 캘리포니아인민공화국
Posts: 3,487
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
So assuming the judge waits until the 5th and shoots it down, he would appeal to the 9th and could get a stay by the 9th of April? Does that sound about right?
There's no requirement at all for Judge Benitez to even abide by AG Becerra's timeframe.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:41 PM
Section 101's Avatar
Section 101 Section 101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Den60 View Post
For those attorneys on here, do the plaintiffs have the ability to argue against a stay?
It will be submitted on the 3rd.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:41 PM
Den60's Avatar
Den60 Den60 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 815
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Not quite. It was a 2-1 decision. I am almost certain N.R. Smith would vote to uphold. John Clifford Wallace, although a Mormon and a Republican, is almost certain to vote to overturn. The wildcard is whoever the third judge is. In the preliminary injunction round it was a far-left retired judge from New York sitting by designation (special appointment). I'm not sure if she will be on the panel this time, but if she is, it is conceivable she votes to overturn despite supporting the preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction can only be overturned if a very high burden is met. A final appealable order can be overturned much easier.

I am no lawyer but it seems to me that Judge Benitez' ruling is so compelling and comprehensive that it would take some time for Becerra to come up with an appeal that would have even a chance of winning in the SCOTUS which this case likely will end up if the 9th overturns. Benitez not only leans heavily on Heller, but he shoots down every "expert" witness Becerra used to support his case.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:44 PM
Triple765's Avatar
Triple765 Triple765 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 332
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjdlc805 View Post
Can we stop calling them "large capacity Magazines (LCMS)?"
To be fair, people are buying LCM's. For example, 32 rnd. 9mm (handgun), Surefire 60 & 100's for 5.56/.223 and various drums. I prefer the term "Extended capacity".

Last edited by Triple765; 04-01-2019 at 7:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:44 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 154
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 101 View Post
It will be submitted on the 3rd.
No. They will file something tonight or tomorrow, as indicated by the state’s attorney’s declaration.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:48 PM
deadlift350 deadlift350 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For clarification - if the judge denies the stay, thats when they would file an appeal and it heads to the 9th right?
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:48 PM
SanDiego619's Avatar
SanDiego619 SanDiego619 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 672
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple765 View Post
To be fair, people are buying LCM's. For example, 32 rnd. 9mm (handgun) and various drums. I prefer the term "Extended capacity".
I got a few of those! 31rd Glock mag, 40 rd AR mags, 60 round drum

And some standard mags (30, 14 and 15 rounds)
__________________
Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:50 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,127
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I believe the AG has to request the stay from the district judge and get denied before sending the request to the 9th. The short dates are likely just to encourage a fast response so the AG can send an appeal for the denied stay. The faster stay is denied by the district the faster it goes to the 9th.

Hopefully the district judge doesn't fall for it and waits at least a few weeks to decide.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:51 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,711
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

All of my SCM's declared Amnesty as soon as they crossed the border.
__________________
Only slaves don't need guns


Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
Americans vs. Democrats
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:51 PM
robertkjjj's Avatar
robertkjjj robertkjjj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 859
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

"What if? What if? What if?" . Sorry if this sounds mean, but the sheer number of worrywarts on this thread is incredible.

But, I guess this is to be expected, when a group of people have been beaten down like dogs, so hard, for so long.
__________________

NRA Lifetime Member. Hunter & Target Shooter.
San Diego County.
Passionate supporter of RTKBA.
Supporter of conceal and open-carry.

"It's called the Bill Of Rights. Not the Bill of Needs."

Acronyms
AR-15 Primer
CA firearms laws timeline
BLM land maps
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:51 PM
Section 101's Avatar
Section 101 Section 101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
No. They will file something tonight or tomorrow, as indicated by the state’s attorney’s declaration.
This is CRP's opposition to the stay.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:52 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,991
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

So, what do I do with all the “repair kits” I have???


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:56 PM
SanDiego619's Avatar
SanDiego619 SanDiego619 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 672
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertkjjj View Post
"What if? What if? What if?" . Sorry if this sounds mean, but the sheer number of worrywarts on this thread is incredible.

But, I guess this is to be expected, when a group of people have been beaten down like dogs, so hard, for so long.
We are abuse victims. In honesty, I am just asking what the law is out of curiosity. The first thing I thought of was "What about magazines in the mail?" so I asked.

I know well that the burden of proof is on the state to prove I acquired any mags out of state when it was not legal to do so, and since magazines aren't serialized and controlled like receivers, there is not a good way to do that.
__________________
Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:57 PM
SanDiego619's Avatar
SanDiego619 SanDiego619 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 672
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
So, what do I do with all the “repair kits” I have???


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
FRICKIN ASSEMBLE THEM!!!!!

That's what I did on Friday night.
__________________
Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:57 PM
thayne's Avatar
thayne thayne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
I believe the AG has to request the stay from the district judge and get denied before sending the request to the 9th. The short dates are likely just to encourage a fast response so the AG can send an appeal for the denied stay. The faster stay is denied by the district the faster it goes to the 9th.

Hopefully the district judge doesn't fall for it and waits at least a few weeks to decide.
How long can he put it off before they can go over his head?
__________________
Quote:
"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:58 PM
glilon glilon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 409
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I have no doubt he is a pariah now. The cynic in me expects a #metoo accusation to take him down like they did Kozinski.
No place for him to go but the Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-01-2019, 7:59 PM
SanDiego619's Avatar
SanDiego619 SanDiego619 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 672
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glilon View Post
No place for him to go but the Supreme Court.
I wonder how Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch will rule

__________________
Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-01-2019, 8:03 PM
robertkjjj's Avatar
robertkjjj robertkjjj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 859
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smedkcuf View Post
Does anyone know the outcome of this discussion?

"6. Mr. Brady also indicated that Plaintiffs will be opposing Defendant’s request for an immediate, temporary stay pending the Court’s consideration of the application to stay pending appeal. We discussed Mr. Brady’s concern that, if the immediate stay is issued, individuals who may have ordered LCMs over the weekend following entry of the Judgment may be in violation of the law if they receive the LCMs during the stay. Given that Defendant is requesting that the Court issue the temporary stay by April 2, 2019, Mr. Brady stated that Plaintiffs anticipate filing their opposition to the request for a temporary stay as early as this evening."
.....................
Sorry, but where did you find that discussion? URL?
May I assume you're talking about Sean Brady, of Michel & Associates ?
Thx.
__________________

NRA Lifetime Member. Hunter & Target Shooter.
San Diego County.
Passionate supporter of RTKBA.
Supporter of conceal and open-carry.

"It's called the Bill Of Rights. Not the Bill of Needs."

Acronyms
AR-15 Primer
CA firearms laws timeline
BLM land maps
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04-01-2019, 8:04 PM
niq000 niq000 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is the gift that keeps giving, it's like having your cake and eating it too! The clock has been reset, and now there's no way to prove if any of the standard capacity magazines were aquired during the grace period AND it now sounds like there's a path for it to go to SCOTUS. Thanks for being so shortsighted you "progressive" idiots!
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04-01-2019, 8:12 PM
robertkjjj's Avatar
robertkjjj robertkjjj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 859
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
There is no deadline of April 5th. California is the defendant; Benitez is the judge. Benitez sets the timetables, not California. He could sit on it for weeks, or until CA goes over his head to the Ninth Circuit if he so chose.
................
Exactly.
In fact, look at what pinhead Becerra writes in his "APPLICATION TO STAY
JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL" :
" Defendant respectfully requests that this Court rule on this stay application by April 5, 2019. "
This is nothing but Becerra making a "request" to Judge Benitez. It's not a demand. It's not an order.

It's not much different than if a cop stopped you for speeding, and right before he wrote you a ticket you respectfully asked him not to write you the ticket after all. And we all know how that usually turns out.
__________________

NRA Lifetime Member. Hunter & Target Shooter.
San Diego County.
Passionate supporter of RTKBA.
Supporter of conceal and open-carry.

"It's called the Bill Of Rights. Not the Bill of Needs."

Acronyms
AR-15 Primer
CA firearms laws timeline
BLM land maps
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04-01-2019, 8:12 PM
FourT6and2's Avatar
FourT6and2 FourT6and2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,581
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
I've been reading the memorandum arguments and it appears as if they are simply restating the case they just received a ruling on. I can't imagine any kind of logic to the idea that a judge should stay their own decision because of a public safety risk when the State of CA just was told that this law is unconstitutional.

All I can think is that Benitez is being put under insane political pressure right now, essentially they are trying to cow him. For a judge to rule on Friday that a law violates the constitution and for him to then stay that judgement a few days later because the AG restates that standard capacity magazines are a health hazard and the State can't recover from the reality that no one can stop the influx..........

It's a merry-go round argument. Benitez clearly opens his judgement with the concept that NOT having standard capacity magazines is the public health threat.
Exactly.

What I find doubly interesting is that IF the judge issues the stay, he is then admitting that LCMs do indeed pose a safety risk to the State since that is the argument the AG is giving. But the judge's ruling is that LCMs DO NOT pose a threat. So why would the judge suddenly reverse his own decision a few days later lol...
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04-01-2019, 8:13 PM
SanDiego619's Avatar
SanDiego619 SanDiego619 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 672
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by niq000 View Post
This is the gift that keeps giving, it's like having your cake and eating it too! The clock has been reset, and now there's no way to prove if any of the standard capacity magazines were aquired during the grace period AND it now sounds like there's a path for it to go to SCOTUS. Thanks for being so shortsighted you "progressive" idiots!
"progressives" are regressive pieces of s--- that should all dunk their heads in a porta-potty at Burning Man and inhale as hard as they can.
__________________
Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 04-01-2019, 8:23 PM
L84CABO's Avatar
L84CABO L84CABO is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Orcas Island, WA and San Diego
Posts: 5,737
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FourT6and2 View Post
Exactly.

What I find doubly interesting is that IF the judge issues the stay, he is then admitting that LCMs do indeed pose a safety risk to the State since that is the argument the AG is giving. But the judge's ruling is that LCMs DO NOT pose a threat. So why would the judge suddenly reverse his own decision a few days later lol...
Well because judges often have respect for the process. They know there is an appeal process...and anything could happen...so judges will often go along with the request for a stay to give time for the appeal to be executed.

And I hope I'm wrong here. But it won't surprise me at all if Judge B grants a temporary stay...or whatever it's called. And he won't be admitting anything by doing that. Only that he respects the process.
__________________
"Kestryll I wanna lick your doughnut."

Fighter Pilot
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 04-01-2019, 8:24 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,160
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Den60 View Post
At least twice as part of my custody proceedings (I gained custody of my child years previously) my ex's lawyer filed ex-parte without giving my attorney of record notice. But, this looks to be a different situation, I just wanted to know if the plaintiffs will be heard as well.
I don't know anything about family law, but I do know you can only go in ex parte with NO notice only in extremely limited circumstances. Not sure what happened with you.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:34 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.