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
  #1  
Old 03-27-2020, 11:23 AM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Brandy, et al. v. Los Angeles Sheriff Alex Villanueva (2020, closing gun stores)

FPC (along with SAF, CGF, and NRA) are launching a federal suit against the LA Sheriff (and company) for the Sheriff's decision to shut down gun stores in LA County (again).

Hopefully the courts can do something quick here.

Court document: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1585333514

FPC post: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-s...olicycoalition

Updates:

30/MAR/2020
- He has reversed his decision to close the gun stores because of the DHS advisory
- A request for a Temporary Restraining Order against the Sheriff has been filed - https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...77785.14.1.pdf

Last edited by Maverick237; 03-31-2020 at 4:41 AM.. Reason: Updates
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-27-2020, 1:46 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 896
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Mountain View PD and Santa Clara county did the same.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-27-2020, 3:29 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,629
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Why is Gun World the only gun shop plaintiff? They are located in Burbank and are not within the scope of the LA County Sheriff's order. He specifically said that he will leave the decision up to local cities with their own police department, and as far as I know, Burbank has allowed their gun stores to stay open (unless this is no longer the case?). This may create an issue with standing.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-27-2020, 7:08 PM
redhead's Avatar
redhead redhead is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 483
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Contra Costa County has also ordered gun stores closed.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-27-2020, 9:44 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,959
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Burbank isn’t in LA County?
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-28-2020, 12:00 AM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
Burbank isn’t in LA County?
They do not have their own health department like Pasadena or Long Beach so they have to follow LA County's. As a result the LASD Sheriff took this action.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-28-2020, 6:55 AM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,629
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
Burbank isn’t in LA County?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick237 View Post
They do not have their own health department like Pasadena or Long Beach so they have to follow LA County's. As a result the LASD Sheriff took this action.
This has nothing to do with health departments. Please read what Sheriff's Villanueva's order says:

"... they support my decision to direct that action in the 42 contract cities and unincorporated Los Angeles County areas under the Sheriff's jurisdiction. I have deferred to the discretion of each individual chief of police as to their own jurisdictions."

Burbank is not one of the contract cities. Contract cities are those that contract to receive their law enforcement services from the Sheriff's Department. Burbank has its own police force and its own chief of police. Burbank, therefore, is not covered by this order.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-28-2020, 10:01 AM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
This has nothing to do with health departments. Please read what Sheriff's Villanueva's order says:

"... they support my decision to direct that action in the 42 contract cities and unincorporated Los Angeles County areas under the Sheriff's jurisdiction. I have deferred to the discretion of each individual chief of police as to their own jurisdictions."

Burbank is not one of the contract cities. Contract cities are those that contract to receive their law enforcement services from the Sheriff's Department. Burbank has its own police force and its own chief of police. Burbank, therefore, is not covered by this order.
Correct but Burbank does not have a health department of their own. That is why it's not just the Sheriff being sued but also the County Health Department. The case is about how the Sheriff is determining what is not essential as per the health department's order.

So even though Burbank gun stores can stay open they're still affected. Pasadena and Long Beach have their own health departments so it's a different story for them.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-28-2020, 11:51 AM
GKS1776 GKS1776 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

LA Sheriff did force stores like Guns Direct in Burbank to shut down for a day or two. Then Guns Direct got a call from Burbank PD and Burbank PD said gun stores are "essential businesses" and Guns Direct could reopen. Fox 11 interviewed the owner of Guns Direct and GD posted updates on their website and social media accounts.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-28-2020, 1:26 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,050
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick237 View Post
Correct but Burbank does not have a health department of their own. That is why it's not just the Sheriff being sued but also the County Health Department. The case is about how the Sheriff is determining what is not essential as per the health department's order.

So even though Burbank gun stores can stay open they're still affected. Pasadena and Long Beach have their own health departments so it's a different story for them.
^^^YES^^^

Villian Nueva is claiming authority for these closures.

UNDER COUNTY HEALTH CODE EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION. So his, [according to him], "POWER" over incorporated cities is valid, if they don't have their own Health Dept.

EDIT ADDED

That is the reasoning for NRA, SAF, and FPC including the County Health Dept in their law suit against Villian Nueva.

Last edited by pacrat; 03-28-2020 at 1:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-28-2020, 1:07 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 729
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Let's now see them try to moot the case because they took back the order. They shouldn't be enough unless gun stores are some how state or nation wide canonicalized as essential, this case needs to be heard. This won't be our last ,"Shelter in place" order and we can't have every county making up their own rules each time.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-28-2020, 2:05 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,629
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Don't get me wrong, this is a critically important issue and I hope the lawsuit is successful in enjoining the sheriff's order and accomplishing the goal of recognizing gun stores as essential. What I'm saying is, maybe it would be a better idea to have the lone retail plaintiff be a store that has actually been closed by the order? It would be a lot easier to demonstrate an injury-in-fact and defend against a potential argument by the opposition that there is lack of standing.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-28-2020, 4:29 PM
GKS1776 GKS1776 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Don't get me wrong, this is a critically important issue and I hope the lawsuit is successful in enjoining the sheriff's order and accomplishing the goal of recognizing gun stores as essential. What I'm saying is, maybe it would be a better idea to have the lone retail plaintiff be a store that has actually been closed by the order? It would be a lot easier to demonstrate an injury-in-fact and defend against a potential argument by the opposition that there is lack of standing.
There is a chance that they did shut down for a day. As I said Guns Direct, which is a few blocks from Gun World was forced to shut down, then the Burbank PD said that gun stores are essential business and they could reopen. What happened at Guns Direct may have happened at Gun World however I could not find an answer on GW's website or social media that verifies this.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-28-2020, 6:28 PM
Medic451's Avatar
Medic451 Medic451 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 672
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Trump declares 2A businesses essential.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...TCPPTyxyjwk2-4
__________________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."
- John Wayne in "The Shootist"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-28-2020, 10:38 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,050
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the update Medic.

Quote:
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb commented on the DHS declaration, saying, “Every freedom loving American owes President Trump and his administration a very big thank you for protecting our Second Amendment Rights. This is another Trump promise made and promise kept.”



Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-29-2020, 2:23 AM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They did write that they can not force states to keep gun stores open, the feds are just providing their interpretation.

So ultimately this is just a feel good move. People in pro-gun states will see no benefit because the state gov. already backed them up. Those of us in CA, NY, NJ, and others are out of luck.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-29-2020, 9:20 AM
tonelar's Avatar
tonelar tonelar is offline
Dinosaur
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Moving to El Paso
Posts: 6,059
iTrader: 117 / 100%
Default

My hope is that LA residents remember this come election time. That sheriff has got tongo.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-29-2020, 1:11 PM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonelar View Post
My hope is that LA residents remember this come election time. That sheriff has got tongo.
People forget a lot in a year or two. Next Sheriff election is in 2 years so I'm not holding my breath.

If this Sheriff resigns we'll get an interim Sheriff (like we had after Baca was forced out).

Perhaps Lindsey will swoop in again that time around or maybe the next Sheriff will be pro-CCW (I read that after the Riverside Sheriff was forced out the next Sheriff was pro-CCW and has been since then).
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-29-2020, 8:16 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 286
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

First Amended Complaint

Press release

Quote:
As part of the amendments in the case of Brandy, et al. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, et al., four individuals and three firearm and ammunition retailers, two of which are also shooting ranges, were added as plaintiffs suing the various government defendants. They join other plaintiffs including the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), National Rifle Association of America (NRA), California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

This latest court filing references important new DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Guidance, dated and released yesterday, which states that “Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers” include those “supporting the operation of firearm or ammunition product manufacturers, retailers, importers, distributors, and shooting ranges.”
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-30-2020, 8:16 AM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good on DHS.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-30-2020, 9:32 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As I posted in another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Trump’s declaration regarding gun stores being essential businesses included shooting ranges. I hope this coalition includes at least one of them as plaintiffs.
Hopefully, someone with the Coalition (or a supporter of) will see this and make sure it's done.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-30-2020, 3:36 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,050
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
As I posted in another thread:


Hopefully, someone with the Coalition (or a supporter of) will see this and make sure it's done.
Done with new plaintiff filing yesterday. 2 of the 4 new plaintiffs are "Gun Ranges".
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-30-2020, 8:31 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Done with new plaintiff filing yesterday. 2 of the 4 new plaintiffs are "Gun Ranges".


__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-30-2020, 11:47 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm actually rather curious as to whether the forced closures of self-defense stores could help the NYSRPA case before the SCOTUS.

Part of the NYSRPA case was a question about mootness. Self-defense stores being forced to close and then later allowed to re-open and therefore supposedly mooting the case could cause some SCOTUS justices figure that allowing even temporary abrogation of rights is unacceptable and that such cases cannot be mooted.

This would obviously not be something which would be argued, but it might influence a justice or two against mooting?
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-30-2020, 12:23 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,629
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I'm glad to see they brought in additional commercial plaintiffs, which should now hopefully eliminate lack of standing as being an issue.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-30-2020, 8:24 PM
sghart sghart is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sacramento County
Posts: 761
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

I am just a casual visitor here. I don't pretend to be able to keep up with the legalese or the constantly changing landscape.

But I do give a shout out to you guys that do. I can read a few of your summaries of the days developments and feel that I have a handle on things.

Until tomorrow that is when things flip again.

Thanks for watching out for us.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-30-2020, 8:53 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 158
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Apparently Sheriff now says gun stores are essential, thanks to DHS advisory.


LA County Sheriff Pulls Opposition to Gun Stores as Essential Businesses https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...esses/2338110/

I suspect lawsuit will go on though.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-30-2020, 8:58 PM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,538
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
Apparently Sheriff now says gun stores are essential, thanks to DHS advisory.


LA County Sheriff Pulls Opposition to Gun Stores as Essential Businesses https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...esses/2338110/

I suspect lawsuit will go on though.
But but guns at home and people don’t mix

In all seriousness, why would the lawsuit continue? It would seem moot at this point now.
__________________
Freedom isn't free...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-30-2020, 9:03 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 606
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

This lawsuit is likely to continue for the same reasons the NJ lawsuit is continuing———- to seek a permanent injunction so that the a Sheriff cannot flip flop again (is this 3 times now or 4? I lost track somewhere along the way.)
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-30-2020, 9:07 PM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,538
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
This lawsuit is likely to continue for the same reasons the NJ lawsuit is continuing———- to seek a permanent injunction so that the a Sheriff cannot flip flop again (is this 3 times now or 4? I lost track somewhere along the way.)
Makes sense. We’ll see what they do.
__________________
Freedom isn't free...
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-31-2020, 4:41 AM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) has been filed: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...77785.14.1.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-31-2020, 1:59 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,050
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
This lawsuit is likely to continue for the same reasons the NJ lawsuit is continuing———- to seek a permanent injunction so that the a Sheriff cannot flip flop again (is this 3 times now or 4? I lost track somewhere along the way.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick237 View Post
A request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) has been filed: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...77785.14.1.pdf
PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS seem to be the only thing that sometimes works. Even when LEGISLATION DOESN'T.

REMEMBER KATRINA? When the Mayor and Police made illegal mandates regarding the 2A. And the police, even those imported from as far as CrapOfornia, ILLEGALLY ENFORCED THOSE ILLEGAL MANDATES.

Look what is once again happening in New Orleans.

SAME CH1T..........DIFFERENT CRISIS!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-01-2020, 3:24 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 286
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. Defendants Alex Villanueva, Gavin Newsom, Sonia Y. Angell, Barbara Ferrer, County of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, City of Los Angeles, Justin Hess, and City of Burbank ("Defendants") are ORDERED to file a response to Plaintiffs' ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order on or before 5:00pm Friday, April 3, 2020. IT IS SO ORDERED.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...-v-villanueva/
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-01-2020, 3:53 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,050
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. Defendants Alex Villanueva, Gavin Newsom, Sonia Y. Angell, Barbara Ferrer, County of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, City of Los Angeles, Justin Hess, and City of Burbank ("Defendants") are ORDERED to file a response to Plaintiffs' ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order on or before 5:00pm Friday, April 3, 2020. IT IS SO ORDERED.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...-v-villanueva/
Excellent: make these gun grabbing autocratic A-holes answer in court for their wrong doings under color of authority [that doesn't exist].

Simply flip flopping don't cut it!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-03-2020, 11:12 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,366
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I noticed this was not uploaded on to court listener. This is the opposition of Los Angeles to the restraining order filed.
https://www.scribd.com/document/4549...-to-Tro-by-L-a
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-04-2020, 11:28 AM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 158
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I noticed this was not uploaded on to court listener. This is the opposition of Los Angeles to the restraining order filed.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4549...-to-Tro-by-L-a


It’s no longer there.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-04-2020, 1:47 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 158
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

State's declaration has something interesting:

Plaintiffs challenge the Executive Order on the basis that it does not expressly identify firearms and ammunition retailers to be in a critical infrastructure sector. But Plaintiffs misread the order. As the Governor has publicly confirmed, the Executive Order does not mandate the closure of firearms and ammunition retailers. To the extent any local official acting on his or her own authority requires the closure of those retailers, such actions do not concern the Executive Order. Thus, there is no justiciable controversy between Plaintiffs and the State Defendants.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-05-2020, 9:46 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default “It wasn’t us.”

The state filing is likely accurate. Bass Pro Shop is still open. There does not appear to be a statewide order in effect for firearms and ammunition. Newsome has generally been precise in his public statements-often being careful to frame things as strong recommendations rather than “orders.” That could get the state excused from the lawsuit.
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 12:26 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical