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 06-24-2022, 1:09 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Post Thread Collecting Post-Bruen Case Updates

Figured I'd start a thread to collect and organize the status of all 9th Circuit 2A cases following Bruen. Please post a short summary of the case as well as the action taken by the court or a motion by a party in light of Bruen (e.g, Order for further briefing; Preliminary injunction hearings scheduled; etc.). Please link the order or docket page. You can post new lawsuits or demand letters as well.

Last edited by CommieforniaResident; 06-24-2022 at 1:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-24-2022, 2:13 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Rhode v. Becerra

Since there haven't been any other contributions yet, I'll start.

Case: Rhode v. Becerra (3:18-cv-00802)
Cause of Action: Challenge to CA Prop. 63 ammo fees, background check, and ammo import laws
Post-Bruen Action:
6/24/22 - Order for parties to file supplemental briefings regarding effect of Bruen

Last edited by CommieforniaResident; 07-01-2022 at 9:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-24-2022, 2:22 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Rupp v. Becerra

Case: Rupp v. Becerra (8:17-cv-00746)
Cause of Action: Challenge to CA Assault Weapons Laws
Post-Bruen Action
6/24/22 - None
6/28/22 - 9th Circuit remands case back to the District Court to reconsider in light of Bruen. Note that the District Court's initial pre-Bruen ruling found that an assault weapons ban "does not burden conduct protected by the
Second Amendment" under the first step in the 9th Circuit's two-step analysis.

Last edited by CommieforniaResident; 06-28-2022 at 3:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-24-2022, 2:26 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Young v. Hawaii

Case: Young v. Hawaii (1:12-cv-00336)
Cause of Action: Challenge to Hawaii's Open Carry Ban
Post-Bruen Action:
6/24/22 - None
6/30/22 - SCOTUS sends case back to 9th Circuit en banc to reconsider in light of Bruen
6/30/22 - Motion filed for summary reversal in favor of Young.

Last edited by CommieforniaResident; 07-01-2022 at 10:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-24-2022, 2:30 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Jones v. Becerra

Case: Jones v. Becerra (3:19-cv-01226)
Cause of Action: Challenge to CA's 18-21 Firearm Purchase Restrictions
Post-Bruen Action:
6/24/22 - None
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-24-2022, 2:37 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Duncan v. Becerra

Case: Duncan v. Becerra (3:17-cv-01017)
Cause of Action: Challenge to CA's magazine-capacity restrictions
Post-Bruen Action:
6/24/22 - None
6/30/22 - SCOTUS sends case back to 9th Circuit en banc to reconsider in light of Bruen

Last edited by CommieforniaResident; 07-01-2022 at 9:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-24-2022, 2:43 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Nguyen v. Becerra

Case: Nguyen v. Bonta (3:20-cv-02470)
Cause of Action: Challenge to California's 1-in-30 day purchase restrictions
Post-Bruen Action:
6/24/22 - None
6/30/22 - Court asks for supplemental briefings in light of Bruen

Last edited by CommieforniaResident; 07-02-2022 at 12:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-24-2022, 5:16 PM
flyer898's Avatar
flyer898 flyer898 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Limbo
Posts: 1,937
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

I think think this is a potentially very important thread. I am also concerned about cluttering the thread. It looks like OP will be able to edit his posts based on developments in the cases reported by list members and from other sources.
Someone will be able to visit the thread, get up to date on the cases in the first page or two, and then read the gossip.
Kudos to OP for taking this on.
__________________
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain
"One argues to a judge, one does not argue with a judge." Me
"Never argue unless you are getting paid." CDAA
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-24-2022, 6:01 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyer898 View Post
I think think this is a potentially very important thread. I am also concerned about cluttering the thread. It looks like OP will be able to edit his posts based on developments in the cases reported by list members and from other sources.
Someone will be able to visit the thread, get up to date on the cases in the first page or two, and then read the gossip.
Kudos to OP for taking this on.
Thanks. I'll reserve a couple posts below this to put updates as to other cases and let everyone post updates/discuss below.

If a mod sees this thread, can we please get it sticky-ed? I'll try and keep it up to date.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-24-2022, 6:01 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Renna v. Becerra

Case: Renna v. Becerra (3:20-cv-02190)
Cause of Action: Challenge to CA safe-handgun roster and ban on self-manufacture of non-rostered handguns
Post-Bruen Action:
6/24/22 - None

Last edited by CommieforniaResident; 06-24-2022 at 7:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-24-2022, 6:02 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Miller v. Becerra/Bonta

Case: Miller v. Becerra/Bonta (3:19-cv-01537)[/URL]
Cause of Action: Challenge to CA Assault Weapon Laws
Post-Bruen Action:
6/28/22 - None. Note that this case was previously stayed pending the resolution of Rupp v. Bonta in the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit, on 6/28/22, sent Rupp back to the District Court.

6/30/22 - Motion requesting Ninth Circuit court to lift stay filed, asking court to allow district court's judgment against CA assault weapons law to take effect.

7/11/22 - Opposition to Motion to Lift Stay and Motion to Vacate and Remand for Further Proceedings

7/12/22 - Parties’ Joint Status Report

7/18/22 - Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Reply to Defendants-Appellants’ Opposition to Lift Stay

Last edited by CommieforniaResident; 07-23-2022 at 2:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-24-2022, 6:07 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

RESERVED
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-24-2022, 6:12 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

RESERVED FOR OTHER CASES
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-24-2022, 6:17 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

FINAL RESERVED POST
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-24-2022, 6:46 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1665656

Renna v Becerra - US Dist Ct So Cal, 11/2020 (Roster aka Pena II)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-24-2022, 7:19 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,901
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

This is simpler

https://airtable.com/shrcrC5FsedZqIi...7AX9876GOWN0dN
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-24-2022, 7:32 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
I saw that and it's a good resource, but it has two problems as far as I can tell:

1. The docket linked goes to the Michel Lawyers website; it's a good resource as well but it's not kept up to date like the CourtListener/Pacer/Recap docket, meaning the information on the Airtable itself can be a bit out-of-date.
2. The information there is not specific enough as to current actions--knowing the court ordered briefings re. Bruen is more useful than "Open" or "On hold." It's also not particularly specific as to the issue--"Hunting" doesn't really tell me what the case is about.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-24-2022, 8:44 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 941
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
I refuse to click on links or use resources promoted by either FPC or CGRF. The Bruen case proved the point that many of us made over the list 10+ years about how much of a sham the Brandon Combs organizations are and how badly he and Gene Hoffman botched the management and spending of funds that eager pro 2A Californians contributed to their misguided lawsuits.

Anyone associated with those two organizations can GTFO, as far as I'm concerned. Others are free to have a differing opinion.
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming yet refusing to disclose some "master plan" is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-28-2022, 3:46 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Bump: Update provided for Rupp v. Becerra. Added Miller v. Bonta.

Last edited by CommieforniaResident; 06-28-2022 at 4:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-29-2022, 7:18 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Bunch of cases just got scheduled for conference 6/29/2022.

Young
Duncan
Bianchi
NJRPC

Last edited by abinsinia; 06-29-2022 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-29-2022, 7:32 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

They deleted the entry to distribute the Duncan case.

EDIT: was re-added after getting deleted.

Last edited by abinsinia; 06-29-2022 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-29-2022, 10:34 AM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
They deleted the entry to distribute the Duncan case.
That's not what the docket shows as of 6/29/22 11:34 AM: "Jun 29 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022."
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-29-2022, 10:45 AM
NorCalRT NorCalRT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,327
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommieforniaResident View Post
Case: Rupp v. Becerra (8:17-cv-00746)
Cause of Action: Challenge to CA Assault Weapons Laws
Post-Bruen Action
6/24/22 - None
6/28/22 - 9th Circuit remands case back to the District Court to reconsider in light of Bruen. Note that the District Court's initial pre-Bruen ruling found that an assault weapons ban "does not burden conduct protected by the
Second Amendment" under the first step in the 9th Circuit's two-step analysis.
Wonder what the new scrutiny section will say, the old one did not age well

Quote:
Plaintiffs devote a significant portion of their
briefing to arguing that the AWCA violates the Second Amendment under a “scope-based
analysis” derived largely from then-Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in Heller v. District of
Columbia (Heller II) Essentially, Plaintiffs’ proposed test requires
a “historical justification” for firearm regulations. If there is no historical
justification, the regulation is per se invalid. The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ proposed
test for two reasons. First, it does not find it persuasive for the reasons expressed by the
majority opinion in Heller II. (“If the Supreme Court truly intended
to rule out any form of heightened scrutiny for all Second Amendment cases, then it surely
would have said at least something to that effect.")
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-29-2022, 10:59 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommieforniaResident View Post
That's not what the docket shows as of 6/29/22 11:34 AM: "Jun 29 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022."
They added it back 30min's later. Refer to the specific case thread for more detailed information.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-29-2022, 3:51 PM
NorCalRT NorCalRT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,327
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status...33471602593795

McDougall v. Ventura County (9th Circuit): En banc Ninth Circuit vacates judgment in lawsuit challenging COVID gun store and range closures and remands it to the district court in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-30-2022, 6:20 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Order list at 7:45 am PT.
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-30-2022, 6:48 AM
Bbonez Bbonez is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Santa Barbara County
Posts: 428
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...22zor_5he6.pdf
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-30-2022, 7:17 AM
NorCalRT NorCalRT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,327
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bbonez View Post

Quick run down, ANJRPC v. Buck (magazine case), Duncan v. Bonta (magazine case), Bianchi v. Frosh (assault weapons case), Young v. Hawaii (open carry case), all GVR'd
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-30-2022, 7:19 AM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 989
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

The orders list basically says ANJRPC v. Buck (magazine case), Duncan v. Bonta (magazine case), Bianchi v. Frosh (assault weapons case), Young v. Hawaii (open carry case), have all been GVR'd and go back to Courts of Appeals to be decided in accords with NYSRPA v. Bruen.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-01-2022, 10:13 AM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
The orders list basically says ANJRPC v. Buck (magazine case), Duncan v. Bonta (magazine case), Bianchi v. Frosh (assault weapons case), Young v. Hawaii (open carry case), have all been GVR'd and go back to Courts of Appeals to be decided in accords with NYSRPA v. Bruen.
Posts updated.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-02-2022, 12:07 PM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalRT View Post
Wonder what the new scrutiny section will say, the old one did not age well
It almost looks like the Supremes read that part and said; Hmmm...
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

My Utubery
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-03-2022, 7:35 PM
Ocdlaw Ocdlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: South Orange County
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes. that analysis that the Assault Weapons Ban does not implicate Second Amendment rights because, essentially, there is no difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 regardless of the second step was ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-07-2022, 10:32 AM
timdps timdps is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,354
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Seems like you might want to add the ANJRPC v. Buck (magazine case) and Bianchi v. Frosh cases, even though they are not specifically CA cases?

T
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-07-2022, 12:29 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timdps View Post
Seems like you might want to add the ANJRPC v. Buck (magazine case) and Bianchi v. Frosh cases, even though they are not specifically CA cases?

T

They are outside the Ninth Circuit so even a positive and final decision there won't affect us. Cases in other 9th Circuit states like HI and WA are relevant since a federal appellate decision there will affect CA law, but not a decision for NJ or Maryland.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-16-2022, 3:52 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Does anyone else here besides me have the class to add Nichols?

Or will this be another thread where everything but the Nichols case is acknowledged?

I'm going to let someone else do it just to find out. Paladin perhaps?

=8-)
I'm unfamiliar with that case. Can you post the caption? I'll add it if it's a 9th Circuit appellate case or a 9th District Court case that's issuing an injunction or a TRO. Also, I'm not adding right to carry cases here based on good cause requirements, but will for challenges to good moral character/psych. testing/etc. since the CA AG made clear good cause won't be enforced.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-16-2022, 5:20 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
I'll put it to you this way...

You are likely the third person here who has tried to put a together a case tracker thread...

...and like the first two, ignore Nichols and Zeleny.

And none other than Gun Owners California does the same.

At least Michel is professional enough to inlude it on his listing.

There is no way in hell that people can be aware of Young v. Hawaii and Flanagan v. Harris and NOT be aware of Nichols v. (Brown, Harris, Becerra, etc.)

There's a triple reason for it.

=8-(
Just looked it up. It looks like Nichols v. Newsom is an open carry case in CA. I'll add this to the thread since you seem so insistent on it and perhaps others want to know what's going on there.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-16-2022, 5:57 PM
CommieforniaResident CommieforniaResident is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 285
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
https://casetext.com/case/zeleny-v-newsom

Also, Zeleny v. Newsom

A combo case (1A / 2A) that has turned into something of hot glue to local authorities. Everything they try to do get rid of him, everything to do to try to get his case dismissed or motions dismissed...just don't seem to get anywhere.

=8-|
That looks like a very interesting combination of a 1A and 2A case. And it actually looks like he just got a million bucks. Definitely feel free to create a post and keep it updated under this thread!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-17-2022, 11:05 PM
SilveradoColt21's Avatar
SilveradoColt21 SilveradoColt21 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,419
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Is there no case for a challenge on the CA gun roster?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-18-2022, 6:52 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21 View Post
Is there no case for a challenge on the CA gun roster?
Renne in post #10
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-18-2022, 12:47 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 379
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Renne in post #10
Conference scheduled for 7/29
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 11:03 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, 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.



Seams2SewBySusy