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
  #41  
Old 04-06-2020, 4:53 AM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 164
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
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.
That is Newsom and Democrats nationwide being slimy to avoid accountability, and trying to frustrate the inevitable legal challenges in the courts. It's also why there are five or eight cases pending against them. It was an intentional decision to feign ignorance of responsibility. Look up the infamous "58 District Attourneys" letter from the Off List Lower days for another example where they intentionally tried to fragment accountability by "leaving it up to the Sheriffs" to decide if the Bill of Rights (or Department of Homeland Security findings) applies in their county.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=32967
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ibits-Q-Y1.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20071019...ters060220.PDF

Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklisted View Post
December 2005

... throughout the entire month of December (and later), the Department was calling and intimidating out of state manufacturers, suppliers, and dealers. They were given ominous warnings (over the phone, rarely in writing) about California's 58 district attorneys, and some were allegedly lied to. It is not clear whether it was agents, desk clerks, or attorneys that made these calls. Whether they were lied to or not, the strategy worked. Soon, it seemed that nobody wanted to deal with us. Even some dealers here were convinced that we were all going to jail.
Quote:
DOJ FFL Advisory Notice

(Although OLL have been found by law and the courts to be legal to sell in California) There are 58 district attorneys in California's 58 counties. They could (individually) elect to prosecute you for a felony.
This is extremely familiar in terms of tactics, unfamiliar in how it is being applied in a time under emergency powers. But as far as I am aware, the Bill of Rights doesn't cease to exist in bad times. I wish the government disenfranchising people of their rights through the implied use of force would be a crime, such as with the 58 DAs letter... or failing to protect them through the ambiguous affirmation of rights, such as Newsom now.

Last edited by Citizen One; 04-06-2020 at 5:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-06-2020, 1:25 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 286
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-06-2020, 2:43 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 158
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So as figured state is not part of this per judge. Additionally court thinks under intermediate scrutiny itís reasonable. Itís not strict scrutiny because theyíre not coming after your guns...
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-06-2020, 2:59 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 nikonmike5 View Post
So as figured state is not part of this per judge. Additionally court thinks under intermediate scrutiny itís reasonable. Itís not strict scrutiny because theyíre not coming after your guns...
So according to the Obama appointee. It's OK to petty autocrats to deny your "2A RIGHT TO PURCHASE" a firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-06-2020, 8:55 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 158
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
So according to the Obama appointee. It's OK to petty autocrats to deny your "2A RIGHT TO PURCHASE" a firearm.


Yes, because those who own them are not impacted (their logic).

Remember though this was for a TRO. Lawsuit will go on, just wonít be ruled on anytime soon.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-07-2020, 9:45 AM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Heller Two-Stepped again. That NY SCOTUS ruling can't come out soon enough.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-08-2020, 2:59 PM
WingDings's Avatar
WingDings WingDings is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: OC / LA
Posts: 686
iTrader: 103 / 100%
Default

https://freebeacon.com/courts/second...tore-closures/

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 10:49 AM.




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