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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 07-27-2019, 2:45 AM
Weezard Weezard is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's less about the gun being easier to control and more about how he is arguing having a stock where the length can be customized to fit the shooter makes it so much more controllable we have to ban it.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 07-27-2019, 4:44 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 669
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

From an interview with Swalwell in 2018

https://townhall.com/columnists/scot...racks-n2536153

Quote:
Rifles. They’re more powerful and cause more carnage when used with a pistol-grip.
They have to attack the features, because ultimately that's the only difference between the rifles they are banning and they rifles they aren't banning. I wouldn't think I'd see this coming from a judge tho, because it's ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 07-28-2019, 1:58 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
From an interview with Swalwell in 2018

https://townhall.com/columnists/scot...racks-n2536153



They have to attack the features, because ultimately that's the only difference between the rifles they are banning and they rifles they aren't banning. I wouldn't think I'd see this coming from a judge tho, because it's ridiculous.
When the judges are just as political as the politicians I can believe almost any garbage logic will be be presented as reasonable. Now who says there are no Obama judges and no Trump judges, etc?
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 07-28-2019, 2:20 PM
SlimBlundt SlimBlundt is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Not California
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
Now who says there are no Obama judges and no Trump judges, etc?
That’s a great question. Who is saying that? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say “there are no Obama judges” or “there are no Trump judges.”
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 07-28-2019, 2:28 PM
AlienHobo's Avatar
AlienHobo AlienHobo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 586
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimBlundt View Post
That’s a great question. Who is saying that? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say “there are no Obama judges” or “there are no Trump judges.”
Chief Justice Roberts...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/u...ts-rebuke.html
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 07-28-2019, 2:28 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,163
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimBlundt View Post
That’s a great question. Who is saying that? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say “there are no Obama judges” or “there are no Trump judges.”
That would be the Chief Justice John Roberts....

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=there+are+...t=fpas&ia=news
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 07-28-2019, 2:29 PM
SlimBlundt SlimBlundt is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Not California
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienHobo View Post
Holy hell...

We’re doomed.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 07-30-2019, 10:39 AM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 255
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Does anyone know/have a link to the judge's decision in this case? None of the news articles link to it (hell, most don't even use the case's name), and Michel & Associates webpage on the case hasn't been updated with new docs since May.
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 07-30-2019, 10:46 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,163
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
Does anyone know/have a link to the judge's decision in this case? None of the news articles link to it (hell, most don't even use the case's name), and Michel & Associates webpage on the case hasn't been updated with new docs since May.
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...&postcount=139
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:35 AM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 700
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The Rupp backpage is up to date: http://michellawyers.com/rupp-v-becerra/
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 07-30-2019, 12:39 PM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 255
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
The Rupp backpage is up to date: http://michellawyers.com/rupp-v-becerra/
Thank you!
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 07-30-2019, 2:11 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,640
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
Okay so now the argument is that semi-automatics aren't common....this should be infinitely easier to win now...
That’s not true. The fact is this cases are losers the second they are filed in the 9th circuit. All the judges have to do is some mental gymnastics to come up with their ruling.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 07-30-2019, 2:46 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,026
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
That’s not true. The fact is this cases are losers the second they are filed in the 9th circuit. All the judges have to do is some mental gymnastics to come up with their ruling.
Don't shoot the messenger, its what the latest ruling says.....
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 07-30-2019, 3:26 PM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 255
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I read that ruling and my takeaway is here.

Short version: It's tough to read the judge's ruling and not see it as extending an invitation to the gun control zealots in the California legislature to pass a law banning all semi-automatic firearms as inherently "unusual and dangerous."
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 08-07-2019, 12:51 AM
pnkssbtz's Avatar
pnkssbtz pnkssbtz is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Oh R'lyeh?
Posts: 3,555
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So, how do we deal with constitutional violations with a judge that is clearly mis-interpreting Heller v. DC and legislating from the bench?

The judge seemed to dismiss the 2A claim upon the premise that American citizens do not possess "assault weapons" for lawful purposes, and that assault weapons are "dangerous and unusual".


Not only are these assumptions demonstrably false, but they are contrary to the court opinion in Heller v. DC as the main argument the judge is following the arguments presented by the CA AG:

Quote:
“[a]ssault rifles may be banned because they are, like the M-16, ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’”; and (2) “they are also not ‘in common use’ for lawful purposes like self-defense.”
I.E. that because assault weapons are so similiar to militar weapons, that they have no legitimate civilian purpose. Which is completely contrary to what Scalia posited in Heller v. DC:

Quote:
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 08-07-2019, 9:45 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,153
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnkssbtz View Post
So, how do we deal with constitutional violations with a judge that is clearly mis-interpreting Heller v. DC and legislating from the bench?
Appeal to a higher court. It's a little disheartening how often said "legislating from the bench" is occurring these days. Good thing we don't have partisan judges.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 08-07-2019, 11:01 AM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 415
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
That would be the Chief Justice John Roberts....

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=there+are+...t=fpas&ia=news
Yet another Bush family F-up. The Establishment Swamp Republicans who worship the Bushes will never admit that Trump is so much better with judge appointments than the Bushs' gross negligence. Souter?!?! WTF? Harriet Miers? And of course Judas Roberts.

Trump has outsourced his judge selection to the Federalist Society and Mitch McConnell. This is why 2020 is everything. Another 4 years of superlative judge appointments, possibly 2 on SCOTUS.

AP: GOP-controlled Senate confirms 13 more judges named by Trump

Washington Post weeps: As Democrats debated without mentioning federal judges, the Senate confirmed 13 more Trump nominees

Quote:
The president’s ability to nominate judges to lifetime appointments on the federal courts never came up during the two nights of debate this week involving the Democratic candidates.

Over those same two days, the Senate confirmed 13 of President Trump’s judicial nominees, giving Republicans a remarkable 144 judicial appointments since his inauguration and allowing him to reshape the courts and their decisions for decades, filling them with conservative jurists.

Trump owes much of his success to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s singular focus on confirming judicial nominees.

McConnell (R-Ky.) most notably refused to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency, but he also stonewalled Obama’s lower bench appointments. And with a rule change in 2017, he sped up confirmations of Supreme Court nominees, requiring just a simple majority, clearing the way for Trump’s first high-court nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch. The push for confirmations continues.
Now let's just hope McConnell doesn't cave on red flag laws.
__________________
IAALBNYL, DNROTAALA: I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer. Do Not Rely On The Above As Legal Advice.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 08-28-2019, 8:04 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Appeal filed:
Quote:
NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Plaintiffs California Rifle and Pistol Association, Incorporated, Steven Dember, Cheryl Johnson, Michael Jones, Dennis Martin, Steven Rupp, Christopher Seifert, Alfonso Valencia, Troy Willis. Appeal of Judgment,111 . (Appeal Fee - $505 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973-24336061.) (Brady, Sean)
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 09-08-2019, 9:05 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

New due dates:

Quote:
Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 09/04/2019. Transcript ordered by 09/26/2019. Transcript due 10/28/2019. Appellants California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Steven Dember, Cheryl Johnson, Michael Jones, Dennis Martin, Steven Rupp, Christopher Seifert, Alfonso Valencia and Troy Willis opening brief due 12/05/2019. Appellee Xavier Becerra answering brief due 01/06/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11413225] (JBS) [Entered: 08/28/2019 10:24 AM]
The case number at the 9th Circuit is 19-56004.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:08 PM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Freedom, NC
Posts: 8,532
iTrader: 75 / 99%
Default

Thanks for that update!
__________________
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
― Ayn Rand

Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA, Guardian Front Sight
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 11-23-2019, 5:41 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Streamlined request [16] by Appellants California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Steven Dember, Cheryl Johnson, Michael Jones, Dennis Martin, Steven Rupp, Christopher Seifert, Alfonso Valencia and Troy Willis to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellants California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Steven Dember, Cheryl Johnson, Michael Jones, Dennis Martin, Steven Rupp, Christopher Seifert, Alfonso Valencia and Troy Willis opening brief due 01/06/2020. Appellee Xavier Becerra answering brief due 02/05/2020. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 11-23-2019, 11:53 AM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,234
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Which is why these types of cases will have a slim chance of winning, unless SCOTUS is blatantly pro 2a. The courts won't want to tear down long standing gun laws.
Checkers vs chess?

This is the perfect time to file considering the "expected slap down " coming in the NYSPRA case being heard next week. If we are lucky the high court will set the standard for review related to 2A cases making it harder for district and appellate courts to make it up as they go along.

Considering this the NYSRPCA case becomes more and more important If Trump does not get re-elected. We need one solid ruling before the election and it could open the flood gates.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 11-23-2019, 12:13 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 530
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Checkers vs chess?



This is the perfect time to file considering the "expected slap down " coming in the NYSPRA case being heard next week. If we are lucky the high court will set the standard for review related to 2A cases making it harder for district and appellate courts to make it up as they go along.



Considering this the NYSRPCA case becomes more and more important If Trump does not get re-elected. We need one solid ruling before the election and it could open the flood gates.
With the age on the ninth and Trump ignoring blue slips we could see the ninth swing our way. Getting these in the pipeline now is good. We don't really need to worry about bad precedents as California won't stop passing bad laws unless forced so we will continue to have opportunity to challenge.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 11-23-2019, 12:37 PM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Semi auto rifle ban despite features coming in 3....2....1.....
__________________
"Ya dude just bought my 67th gun today"......
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 11-23-2019, 1:01 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 530
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foreppin916 View Post
Semi auto rifle ban despite features coming in 3....2....1.....
I think we are much more likely to see a complete ban on home builds next. I know we already have a background check for 80s coming but given the "ghost gun" media hysteria I bet we see an attempt to ban them outright.

A semi auto rifle ban would be a treat test case. I strongly believe it wouldn't stand against the 2nd. We could see another Heller like till killing not only over turning there ban but explicit protecting all semi autos which might call into question current AW bans. I'm short it's might just be enough rope for the grabbers to hang themselves.
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 1:10 PM.




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.