California "assault weapon" ban challenged

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: Inquisitor, admin, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Message
Author
User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: ATL Metro
Contact:

Re: California

#26 Post by K9s » Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:16 am

Yeah, GOP doesn't ever bring that up, do they?
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 24007
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: California

#27 Post by CDFingers » Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:43 am

This is what I wrote on the previous page that K9s replied about:
Leave us not forget that a Republican governor signed the California assault weapons bill, just like a Republican governor signed the microstamping bill which gives us our roster and handgun prohibitions, just like a Republican governor signed the Mulford Act which prevents us from carrying openly in a state where all the urban areas will not grant carry licenses because reasons.
K9s wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:16 am Yeah, GOP doesn't ever bring that up, do they?
Of course not. If they let on that Republicans signed the laws we all hate while saying they support gun rights, they'd damn near elect Donald Trump president.

Oh, wait.

CDFingers
ImageImage
As Stagger Lee lit a cigarette she shot him in the balls.
Blew the smoke off her revolver, had him dragged to city hall.

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: ATL Metro
Contact:

Re: California

#28 Post by K9s » Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:43 am

Image
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
shinzen
Site Admin
Posts: 19573
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: California

#29 Post by shinzen » Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:00 am

Actually the suit is perfectly timed, as both will be appealed beyond the next court and be petitioned to be picked up by the supreme court. If (and that's a big if) the mag case gets to the supreme court AND is decided in our favor, then the AW ban will also, based on the same merits, likely be overturned as well.

As to the questions around what exactly is being challenged, it's not just existing owners. Two gun shops have also joined the suit regarding the ability to sell guns that fall under existing law to folks that pass a background check. So it's pretty damned comprehensive. If the suit fails, more states will pass restrictions like it. If it succeeds, then a whole bunch of existing laws are (rightly) going to get torched.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 19706
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: California

#30 Post by highdesert » Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:07 am

CDFingers wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:27 pm Leave us not forget that a Republican governor signed the California assault weapons bill, just like a Republican governor signed the microstamping bill which gives us our roster and handgun prohibitions, just like a Republican governor signed the Mulford Act which prevents us from carrying openly in a state where all the urban areas will not grant carry licenses because reasons.

Don't forget.

CDFingers
Yes, Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 was signed into law by Rep Gov George Deukmejian. The CA microstamping billing was signed into law in 2007 by Rep Gov Arnold the Terminator. And the Mulford Act in 1967 was signed into law by Rep Gov Ronald Reagan.

Republicans can't argue they have clean hands in violating 2A rights.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: ATL Metro
Contact:

Re: California

#31 Post by K9s » Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:16 am

Wait... what about deficits and spending then? Are you trying to tell me that was all a lie, too?

Back on track... it would be pretty cool if SCOTUS would slow the AWB talk. If Dems could just say "it's the law of the land".
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7486
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: California

#32 Post by featureless » Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:27 am

I wonder what impact, if any, the current events in Virginia will have on these cases. I'm more than a little worried it might kick off something bigger than a legal battle.

frankr
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:50 pm
Contact:

Re: California

#33 Post by frankr » Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:32 am

featureless wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:27 am I wonder what impact, if any, the current events in Virginia will have on these cases. I'm more than a little worried it might kick off something bigger than a legal battle.
Don't stop being worried.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7486
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: California

#34 Post by featureless » Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:51 pm

The Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been filed in this case.
http://publicfiles.firearmspolicy.org/m ... so-mpi.pdf

It's worth noting the judge is the same one that gave us Californians magazine "freedom week" earlier in the year. The argument is similar to that case--Heller doesn't allow banning categories of firearms in common use by law abiding citizens. Another freedom week?

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: ATL Metro
Contact:

Re: California

#35 Post by K9s » Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:07 pm

featureless wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:51 pm The Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been filed in this case.
http://publicfiles.firearmspolicy.org/m ... so-mpi.pdf

It's worth noting the judge is the same one that gave us Californians magazine "freedom week" earlier in the year. The argument is similar to that case--Heller doesn't allow banning categories of firearms in common use by law abiding citizens. Another freedom week?
Save up your pennies... just in case. :)
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7486
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: California

#36 Post by featureless » Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:11 pm

K9s wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:07 pm
featureless wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:51 pm The Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been filed in this case.
http://publicfiles.firearmspolicy.org/m ... so-mpi.pdf

It's worth noting the judge is the same one that gave us Californians magazine "freedom week" earlier in the year. The argument is similar to that case--Heller doesn't allow banning categories of firearms in common use by law abiding citizens. Another freedom week?
Save up your pennies... just in case. :)
:lol:

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 12080
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: California

#37 Post by DispositionMatrix » Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:41 pm


User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 24007
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: California

#38 Post by CDFingers » Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:53 am

DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:41 pm Updates in Miller v. Becerra.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 9.33.0.pdf
As has been the case since the enactment of the AWCA decades ago, the individual Plaintiffs are free to arm themselves with other weapons, including non-assault rifles, pistols, or shotguns, to engage in lawful self-defense. They may arm themselves with semiautomatic, rimfire rifles, or semiautomatic, centerfire rifles that do not have any of the militaristic features of an assault rifle. In restricting access to a uniquely dangerous subset ofmilitary-grade firearms,the AWCA will not irreparably harmPlaintiffsduring this litigation.
I predict the ban will stand.

CDFingers
ImageImage
As Stagger Lee lit a cigarette she shot him in the balls.
Blew the smoke off her revolver, had him dragged to city hall.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 19706
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: California

#39 Post by highdesert » Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:43 am

This case is before Judge Benitz who overturned the mag ban now at the 9th Circuit so we'll see. Trump has now appointed 10 judges to the 9th Circuit and there are some judges like O'Scannlain and Callahan appointed by previous Republican presidents that are sympathetic to 2A rights but not all Republican appointees. Every time an active judge takes senior status there is a new vacancy for Trump to fill. There are still more Clinton appointees on the 9th than Trump appointees, but since O'Connell got rid of blue slips Feinstein and Harris have no say in appointments to CA based federal courts.

We'll see what happens in this case.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 12080
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: California

#40 Post by DispositionMatrix » Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:28 am


highdesert wrote:This case is before Judge Benitz...
Benitez was not too keen on the ban on purchasing ammunition without government permission. I suspect that will be overturned on appeal, though, as would an injunction against California's ban on semi-automatic carbines targeted by firearm prohibitionists.
Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 19706
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: California

#41 Post by highdesert » Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:30 am

DispositionMatrix wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:28 am
highdesert wrote:This case is before Judge Benitz...
Benitez was not too keen on the ban on purchasing ammunition without government permission. I suspect that will be overturned on appeal, though, as would an injunction against California's ban on semi-automatic carbines targeted by firearm prohibitionists.
Rhode vs Becerra - CA ammo law challenge
When the gun lobby groups go judge shopping, I imagine Judge Benitez is at the top of their list. It's random assignment of cases and Benitez has senior status so he doesn't get assigned as many cases as an active district judge, but he's gotten quite a number of them. Hope he doesn't fully retire in the new future, we need him.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 7486
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: California

#42 Post by featureless » Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:23 am

Every pro gun rights ruling that has come out of California since Heller has been overturned by CA9 (or is being held pending SCOTUS). It doesn't matter how good Benitez's ruling is, CA9 will find a way.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 12080
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: California

#43 Post by DispositionMatrix » Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:39 pm

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/f ... 1605748131

FPC Files Final Pre-Trial Brief in “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit; Case Heads to Trial in January
SAN DIEGO (November 18, 2020) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that the final pre-trial brief in Miller v. Becerra, its federal Second and Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the State of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” was filed today. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

The final pre-trial conference in Miller is scheduled to take place in San Diego on December 16, 2020, before Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, with the bench trial to follow on January 21, 2021. The plaintiffs are represented at trial by attorneys George M. Lee, John Dillon, and Erik Jaffe.

FPC’s brief argues that the “arms and conduct proscribed by the [State’s Assault Weapons Control Act] are categorically protected under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and the Supreme Court’s precedents.” It further argues that under the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, the ban is categorically unconstitutional, and that the laws also fail strict and intermediate scrutiny, two approaches that courts sometimes use to decide constitutional questions. It concludes by requesting that the Court issue an opinion declaring the laws and regulations at issue are unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction preventing Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms Chief Luis Lopez, and all law enforcement throughout California from enforcing those unconstitutional laws against the Plaintiffs and all law-abiding adults in the State.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests