California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

"... 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: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11763
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by DispositionMatrix »

There seemed to be no Rupp v. Becerra thread, even though there are threads for the other AWB/Gunmageddon-related lawsuits. Rupp v. Becerra was filed in April of 2017.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3788312 ... erra-Order

Archive link:
2 New Court Decisions Are Quietly Eliminating Californians’ Second Amendment Rights
My guess is most California gun owners would disagree with that title.
In the first case, decided yesterday, a district judge ruled against the National Rifle Association's state affiliate in a challenge to onerous new California rules targeting popular semi-automatic rifles. That 2016 law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), is called the Assault Weapons Control Act.

"Even an outright ban on certain types of semiautomatic weapons does not substantially burden the Second Amendment right," wrote Judge Josephine Staton, a Barack Obama appointee in Santa Ana, California. Staton suggested that if semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 were outlawed, California gun owners "would be left with myriad options for self-defense—including the handgun, the 'quintessential' self-defense weapon per Heller." (Heller, is, of course, a reference to the Supreme Court's D.C. v. Heller case, which dealt with handguns.)
The other decision covered in the article, Flanagan et al v. Becerra et al, is mentioned here:
viewtopic.php?p=664312#p664312

User avatar
senorgrand
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 21510
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Calif Central Coast
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by senorgrand »

Except that our handgun rights are also being erroded...
Image

"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

User avatar
DougMasters
Grizzled Veteran
Posts: 706
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by DougMasters »

I hope this goes up the chain.

Citing Heller seems lazy as Heller didn't decide only hand guns are protected and other guns aren't. Heller didn't decide banning rifles was ok.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 17779
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by highdesert »

In Rupp vs Becerra, they can amend and resubmit or appeal to the 9th Circuit. They might get a panel that is receptive, though en banc they'd likely lose. Flanagan vs Becerra is open carry which in my estimation is a lost cause. I think to argue against the current process of issuing CCPs, that you have to analyze CC permits issued to show how subjective and arbitrary a sheriff or CLEO is in granting them and that it favors judges, public officials, campaign donors etc. Is that persons life more valuable than that of the CCP applicant? If the counties refuse to give that information a neutral party like a special master could be appointed to review approved CCP lists.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 22617
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by CDFingers »

Californians, I wouldn't hold your breath. The quote below is from a conservative justice, Scalia.
The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".
The rule of law is the rule of law, not "what I want to be so."

CDFingers
ImageImage
Major Domo said, "Why don't we give him rope enough to hang himself?
Don't worry 'bout the jury, they'll prolly take care of themselves."

User avatar
Eris
Moderator
Posts: 3090
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 11:54 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by Eris »

CDFingers wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 8:35 pm
Californians, I wouldn't hold your breath. The quote below is from a conservative justice, Scalia.
The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".
The rule of law is the rule of law, not "what I want to be so."

CDFingers
Lately I've been thinking that it *should* be the right to keep and bear any weapon for any purpose. Sort of.

I'm of the firm opinion that the powers and rights of government derive from the powers and rights of the individual people. Where else would government get it's power? Thus if government, for example, has the right to nuclear weaponry then logically individual people must have the same right. (I don't believe in collective rights not shared by individuals.)

Of course, I don't actually believe that governments have a right to possess nukes, either, so there is that.
88+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 12370
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by YankeeTarheel »

Eris wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 9:07 pm
CDFingers wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 8:35 pm
Californians, I wouldn't hold your breath. The quote below is from a conservative justice, Scalia.
The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".
The rule of law is the rule of law, not "what I want to be so."

CDFingers
Lately I've been thinking that it *should* be the right to keep and bear any weapon for any purpose. Sort of.

I'm of the firm opinion that the powers and rights of government derive from the powers and rights of the individual people. Where else would government get it's power? Thus if government, for example, has the right to nuclear weaponry then logically individual people must have the same right. (I don't believe in collective rights not shared by individuals.)

Of course, I don't actually believe that governments have a right to possess nukes, either, so there is that.
I think this is a limited argument. It's not individuals having their own nukes that scares me--construction of even a simple fissionable device is a very complicated and precise process, involving very high levels of mathematics, physics, engineering, machining, combined with incredibly difficult to obtain and handle materials, from weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, to heavy water.

However, it is much, much easier for people with basic college chemistry, or even high school chemistry, to create and contain deadly poisons from fairly common substances, like castor beans. Even virulent contagious diseases, difficult as they are, are much easier to deal with than nuclear devices. Hell, regularly some crackpot is found to have obtained (illegally) highly dangerous and deadly animals that he or she either hasn't contained correctly, or hasn't properly cared for.

And, no, I don't think my next door neighbor should be allowed to keep a large supply of Ebola in his fridge, because "I gotta right to keep 'n' bear any arms I want!"

And, while I agree that no nation SHOULD be allowed nukes and other WMDs, that genie has been out of the bottle since 1945 and can't go back in. Also, NO nation should be allowed to start a war. And dogs shouldn't bite and bees shouldn't sting...and ticks' only value is as bird food.
At least cows and pigs don't fly... :roflmao:
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
ErikO
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 15533
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 10:49 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: St Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by ErikO »

No available method to bear arms is a problem.

Folks here are welcome to move to Missouri and Freedom. ;)
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

User avatar
Eris
Moderator
Posts: 3090
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 11:54 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by Eris »

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:49 pm
And, while I agree that no nation SHOULD be allowed nukes and other WMDs, that genie has been out of the bottle since 1945 and can't go back in. Also, NO nation should be allowed to start a war. And dogs shouldn't bite and bees shouldn't sting...and ticks' only value is as bird food.
At least cows and pigs don't fly... :roflmao:
We should nonetheless be trying to put the genie back. There are still very few nations with nuclear arms. We could start by trying to revive nuclear control talks between Russia and the US. Currently, both nations have multiple thousands of warheads. We should work on getting that down to, say, 1000 each - more than enough to destroy the world, but a significant reduction, and a step that would bolster our credibility with other nuclear nations when trying to get them to also agree to limits.

But this is well of topic now, so I'll leave it at that.
88+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

User avatar
SilasSoule
Chatty
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:30 am
Location: Live overseas, own a little land in northern Nevada.
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by SilasSoule »

"Even an outright ban on certain types of semiautomatic weapons does not substantially burden the Second Amendment right," wrote Judge Josephine Staton, a Barack Obama appointee in Santa Ana, California. Staton suggested that if semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 were outlawed, California gun owners "would be left with myriad options for self-defense—including the handgun, the 'quintessential' self-defense weapon per Heller."

So how does restricting citizens to owning handguns square with the 2nd amendment? Anyone ever seen a handgun militia?
"When and if fascism comes to America... it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism'." - Halford Luccock
"Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
— Mikhail Bakunin

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11763
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by DispositionMatrix »

FEDERAL COURT: SEMI-AUTOS ‘INDISTINGUISHABLE’ FROM M-16S
The order, in a case brought by several gun owners in 2017 seeking to declare California’s “assault weapon” ban unconstitutional, saw U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton side with the state’s point of view. Staton, extensively citing briefs in the case from anti-gun groups such as the Brady Center, Everytown and Giffords, found that semi-autos banned either by name or cosmetic features such as collapsible stocks or muzzle brakes were basically military-grade hardware.

“Because the Court concludes that semiautomatic assault rifles are essentially indistinguishable from M-16s, which Heller noted could be banned pursuant to longstanding prohibitions on dangerous and usual weapons, the Court need not reach the question of whether semiautomatic rifles are excluded from the Second Amendment because they are not in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense,” said Staton, an appointment by President Obama. Prior to stepping up to the federal bench, Staton was a lawyer in private practice in San Francisco and a California Superior Court judge appointed by Gov. Gray Davis just before he was recalled.

Staton also quoted that the rate of fire of such guns, listed in the order as “300 to 500 round per minute rate” makes semiautomatic rifles “virtually indistinguishable in practical effect from machineguns.”
Great. Weird rate-of-fire assertion tossed in as well.

Rupp will lose in the 9th next, I guess.
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
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 22617
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by CDFingers »

I certainly would like to see the trigger finger on a 300-500 rpm semi-auto shooter person. An absolute unit, it must be.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Major Domo said, "Why don't we give him rope enough to hang himself?
Don't worry 'bout the jury, they'll prolly take care of themselves."

User avatar
shinzen
Site Admin
Posts: 19522
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by shinzen »

Considering that there are now 7 Drumpf appointees to the 9th, I suspect that some of the losses on guns in the 9th are coming to an end. That said, I also suspect that our other rights are now going to be predictably fucked by this circuit, while they were nominally protected.
“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: 17779
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by highdesert »

Vacancies still on the 9th Circuit and district courts within the Circuit:
Updated July 10, 2019

This page provides information about the judgeship vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and on the 15 federal district courts within the circuit.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is authorized 29 judgeships. There is one current vacancy and two future vacancies announced. The current vacancy has not been filled since the seat opened on December 31, 2016. The president has not made any nomination to the court.

Ninth Circuit district courts are authorized 112 judgeships. There are 25 current vacancies and 2 future vacancies announced. The duration of the vacancies ranges from 1,805 days to 6 days. The president has made six nominations.

All the current vacancies on the court of appeals and on the district courts are considered judicial emergencies based on criteria established by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6764
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by featureless »

shinzen wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:00 am
Considering that there are now 7 Drumpf appointees to the 9th, I suspect that some of the losses on guns in the 9th are coming to an end. That said, I also suspect that our other rights are now going to be predictably fucked by this circuit, while they were nominally protected.
Yup. Sad state of affairs all around.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11763
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by DispositionMatrix »

What arms are "common"?
The Ninth Circuit case Rupp v. Becerra challenges the California legislature's ban on a wide of variety of rifles. Last week, I co-authored an amicus brief explaining: 1. Supreme Court precedents state that common arms cannot be banned. 2. Lower courts have used several methodologies to decide whether a type of arm is "common"; under any methodology, the arms targeted by California plainly are common. Therefore, prohibition is unconstitutional.
The above is agreed by all sides. "[T]hat the rifles are more accurate and easier to control is precisely why California has chosen to ban them." Rupp v. Becerra, 401 F. Supp.3d 978, 993 (C.D. Ca. 2019).
Unlike "common" arms, "dangerous and unusual weapons" may be prohibited, according to Heller. Any arm that is "common" cannot be "unusual." Therefore, such an arm cannot be "dangerous and unusual."

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 22617
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by CDFingers »

The writer (Kopel) makes a very strong argument to throw it out.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Major Domo said, "Why don't we give him rope enough to hang himself?
Don't worry 'bout the jury, they'll prolly take care of themselves."

User avatar
shinzen
Site Admin
Posts: 19522
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by shinzen »

Yeah, Kopel nailed it on that one.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11763
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by DispositionMatrix »

My money is on another loss for firearm owners.
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... ecerra.pdf

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6764
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by featureless »

DispositionMatrix wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:13 am
My money is on another loss for firearm owners.
Of course. The 9th has ruled against gun rights in every case post Heller. They have distorted Heller's meaning in all manner of ways to meet that goal. Appointment of Trump judges may help, eventually, but at what cost?

Come on, SCOTUS. Do your fucking job.

User avatar
7N6Wolf
Grizzled Veteran
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:11 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by 7N6Wolf »

CDFingers wrote:The writer (Kopel) makes a very strong argument to throw it out.

CDFingers
Maybe so, but to paraphrase Trotsky, logical arguments are powerless where it is a question of interests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"I have been saying for some time now that America only has one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right-wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican."
-Gore Vidal

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 22617
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by CDFingers »

7N6Wolf wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:28 pm
CDFingers wrote:The writer (Kopel) makes a very strong argument to throw it out.

CDFingers
Maybe so, but to paraphrase Trotsky, logical arguments are powerless where it is a question of interests.
Primitive taking of the rhetorical arena.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Major Domo said, "Why don't we give him rope enough to hang himself?
Don't worry 'bout the jury, they'll prolly take care of themselves."

User avatar
Tedzilla
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:02 pm
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by Tedzilla »

featureless:"Come on, SCOTUS. Do your fucking job."
I'd like to second that.
I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT'S BEHIND IT

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11763
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by DispositionMatrix »

In the 9th:
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments/15 ... gBrief.pdf
The primary difference between the M-16 and assault rifles is that the
M-16 is a select-fire rifle, meaning that the shooter can elect to fire in either
automatic or semiautomatic mode, while the assault rifle allows fire only in
semiautomatic mode. See Staples, 511 U.S. at 603; ER 4527; ER 3872:3-13
(Pls.’ Expert Stephen Helsley). This is not a material difference. While
semiautomatic rifles fire only one shot with each pull of the trigger, they can
“still fire almost as rapidly as automatics.” 6
Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1263. In
enacting the federal ban on assault weapons, including assault rifles,
Congress cited testimony that semiautomatic weapons “can be fired at rates
of 300 to 500 rounds per minute, making them virtually indistinguishable in
practical effect from machineguns.”7
ER 4160 (H.R. Rep. No. 103-489, at
18 (1994)); see Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1263; see also ER 3992 (test showed
that a 30-second round magazine empties in less than two seconds on
automatic, while the same magazine empties in just five seconds on
semiautomatic).
Moreover, military personnel are trained to use their select-fire
weapons in semiautomatic mode for improved accuracy and control.
Indeed, the U.S. Army considers the M-16 to be more effective as an
instrument of war when it fired by a trained soldier in semiautomatic mode
than when it is fired in automatic mode. According to the Army, automatic
fire “is inherently less accurate than semiautomatic fire.” ER 3968 (Army
Field Manual); see ER 3537:6-16 (Pls.’ Expert J. Buford Boone, III) (“I can
more precisely place shots on semi-automatic than I can on full automatic.”).
Beyond certain distances, “rapid semiautomatic fire is superior to automatic
fire in all measures.” ER 3965. For this reason, the Army instructs its
solders that their M-16 rifles should “normally be employed in the
semiautomatic fire mode.” Id. at 3969; see also Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 125
(“Soldiers and police officers are often advised to choose and use
semiautomatic fire, because it is more accurate and lethal than automatic fire
in many combat and law enforcement situations.”).

Any difference between the M-16 and assault rifles is also immaterial
in practice because, as Congress found in enacting the federal ban, “it is a
Case: 19-56004, 05/26/2020, ID: 11701501, DktEntry: 39, Page 29 of 73
23
relatively simple task to convert a semiautomatic weapon to automatic fire.”
ER 4160 (H.R. Rpt. No. 103-489). As the Supreme Court has observed,
“[m]any M-16 parts are interchangeable with those in the AR-15 and can be
used to convert the AR-15 into an automatic weapon.” Staples, 511 U.S. at
603. A metal stop on the AR-15, which prevents the installation of an M-16
selector switch, can be easily filed away, as the plaintiff in Staples had done
to turn a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic machinegun. 8
Id. Assault
rifles can also be converted to automatic machineguns by adding a few parts
or by drilling additional holes in the receiver of the rifle or by installing
accessories, such as “bump stocks” or “multiburst trigger activators.”9
ER
3181-82 ¶ 20; ER 3695:5-10 (Pls.’ Expert Gary Kleck).

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 22617
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: California gun owners lose in Rupp v. Becerra (AWB)

Post by CDFingers »

Wow. I simply must drill some random holes into my receiver so it'll be an automatic machine gun. Why didn't I think of that before?

CDFingers
ImageImage
Major Domo said, "Why don't we give him rope enough to hang himself?
Don't worry 'bout the jury, they'll prolly take care of themselves."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests