Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

127
featureless wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:23 pm
highdesert wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 12:41 pm CA AG appealed the Boland v Bonta decision to the 9th Circuit.
https://crpa.org/news/blogs/well-of-cou ... ster-case/
Of course. The appeal is loaded with interest balancing. CA9 will fucking love it.
It’s not going to be a surprise how they rule.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

128
sikacz wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:33 pm
featureless wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:23 pm
highdesert wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 12:41 pm CA AG appealed the Boland v Bonta decision to the 9th Circuit.
https://crpa.org/news/blogs/well-of-cou ... ster-case/
Of course. The appeal is loaded with interest balancing. CA9 will fucking love it.
It’s not going to be a surprise how they rule.
Nope.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

129
SunRiseWest wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:08 pm Seems like microstamping doesn't applies to revolvers, or to double-deuces, or something, because my new (and very fussy) Taurus 942 was introduced in 2020. It's a new model, just not a semiauto. Curious about that...
BKinzey wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:21 pm
"Joe's Imports" finds truckloads of Makarovs in a warehouse in Europe. He's SOL for sales in CA as the manufacturer is out of business.
That made me chuckle, because I live in California, and own a Makarov that I bought here in the very late '90s when a whole shit-pile of these were dumped on the market, must have been before the rule, or when it was applied differently. Also funny because one of the reasons I like about the gun's design is that unless it is cocked, nothing is going to make it fire if it's dropped, it's not mechanically possible. Most of that is the SA/DA thing, but with the safety on, even if you threw it at some crazy angle so the trigger was hit with 50 pounds of force, it won't chamber a round. Seems to be designed for drunk Siberian police officers-- and indeed, I was a heavy drinker when I bought it!

I renewed my interest in firearms in the mid '90s here in CA. I had the opportunity to purchase a "new" Makarov import for $125 and I put the purchase on the back burner. Didn't realize it would have been an excellent purchase. Then prices jumped and I never got one. I often regret it.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

131
Hat tip featureless. From the US District Court SDCA ruling on Renna v Bonta:
Under this newly formulated standard [Bruen], the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ desire to commercially purchase newer models of semiautomatic handguns in common use is covered by the Second Amendment and presumptively protected. Because the State is unable to show the UHA’s [Unsafe Handgun Act] chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and microstamping requirements are consistent with the Nation’s historical arms regulations, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the State’s enforcement of those three provisions, which operate to prohibit the commercial sale of these arms, as well as the three-for-one roster removal provision, which depends on the enforceability of those provisions. However, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that the UHA’s roster listing requirement, and its fees, safety device, and testing requirements violate their Second Amendment rights. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is therefore granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs have shown likely success on their claim that the UHA’s CLI [chamber load indicator], MDM [magazine disconnect mechanism] and microstamping requirements violate their Second Amendment rights. In addition, because the UHA’s three-for-one removal provision depends on the CLI, MDM, and microstamping provisions, it too is unenforceable. See Cal. Penal Code § 31910(b)(7) (stating “for each semiautomatic pistol newly added to the roster,” CDOJ shall “remove from the roster exactly three semiautomatic pistols lacking one or more of the applicable [CLI, MDM and microstamping] features described in [§31910(b)(4)-(6)]”).
Therefore, the Court issues its decision herein but stays
enforcement pending appeal or further hearing on this matter
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firear ... 1680304325

The Roster still exists under this ruling, but it survived with a lot of restrictions. Two district court rulings in a row found microstamping is a violation of 2A. we'll see how the 9th Circuit justifies keeping it. Don't know if CA DOJ will appeal this ruling immediately or wait until the April 14th conference call.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

133
CDFingers wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 8:31 am I have a real hard time with the courts supporting microstamping. They might as well require clean coal or silent two year olds if they're requiring stuff that doesn't exist. How is that "consistent?" Inquiring minds want to know. My interests remain "unbalanced."

CDFingers
In Pena, CA9 found microstamping was groovy as it was narrowly tailored for public safety and you could still buy a gun, just not any gun you wanted. That was well after Heller's common use standard. It was a bullshit ruling (just like Young). It's one of the reasons Bruen now exists because several of the appeals courts would rule for any restriction, even if it required overturning itself through the en banc process. CA9 still may.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

134
The microstamping law of 1999 created a mythical system and the CA executive, legislative and judicial branches approved and upheld it, including the CA state supreme court. I have no doubt that CA law enforcement which is very powerful, strongly supported it. And federal district and the 9th Circuit upheld it. Judges on all those courts made up their minds that the state's compelling interest in gun control allowed it to create an outlandish laws. 2A was seen as a minor amendment, so they didn't take it seriously. The state was always right and the second step of the two step process they created, always gave the CA AG a win.

Two district court decisions in a row (Boland and Renna) overturned microstamping, that along with Bruen makes it tougher to automatically rule for the State of California. Benitez still hasn't ruled on the Duncan and Miller cases.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

136
sikacz wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 11:05 am CA9 just needs to be dissolved and set new. Lower courts need to be subordinate to the Supreme Court, otherwise what’s the point.
The 9th covers 9 states and gets appeals from 15 district court districts from Montana in the East to the Mariana Islands in the West. It definitely needs to be broken up. I'd like to see the four districts in CA broken, up but it's probably not likely. Term limits would really help.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

137
The 9th circuit is n ot as liberal as it once was, it's closely split between Democratic and Republican appointees thanks to 10 appointed by T-rump and the six recent by biden are liberal replacements while 4 of T-rumps were replacing liberals.
I kinda liked it the other way, mostly liberal.
My wife won a case against the Maricopa county attorney about restricting abortion in liberal Pima County at the 9th.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

138
Trump added 10 judges to the 9th Circuit. There are judges on the 9th who were appointed by Nixon and Carter, many of the Republican appointees vote with the Democratic appointees so it's not a clear Democratic v Republican split on the 9th.

Judges who are on active status can take "senior status" when they get to a particular age and years on the bench. Senior judges carry a reduced caseload, but they keep their full staff and can serve until they die. What job allows you to work until you die even if cognitively impaired?

There are now 52 judges, active and senior on the 9th Circuit.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

139
highdesert wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 11:43 am Trump added 10 judges to the 9th Circuit. There are judges on the 9th who were appointed by Nixon and Carter, many of the Republican appointees vote with the Democratic appointees so it's not a clear Democratic v Republican split on the 9th.

Judges who are on active status can take "senior status" when they get to a particular age and years on the bench. Senior judges carry a reduced caseload, but they keep their full staff and can serve until they die. What job allows you to work until you die even if cognitively impaired?

There are now 52 judges, active and senior on the 9th Circuit.
I’d say there’s a lot of dismantling to do. I’m not convinced lifetime tenure on any court including the Supreme is a good idea. We can see from politicians who cling to their decades old ideas that sometimes a fresh outlook is in orders. I think the same applies to judges and when one can’t accept new evidence or abide by new precedents then it’s questionable that the individual has enough faculties to serve in their current post.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

140
The problem with term limits is that it is the staff that all too often are the ones who influence events. It is staff that control the flow of information, scheduling, event attendance, lobbyist access and that staff pretty much stays with the position regardless of who's name is on the brass plate. It's the long term staff that teaches the incumbent the who, what, where and whens and too often also the whys as well. And Citizens United is well aware of the staff and works to keep the staff safe and health.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

141
In the Boland v Bonta case l[microstamping] from CDCA, the 9th Circuit panel hearing Bonta's appeal is composed of Tashima and Thomas appointed by Clinton and Koh appointed by Biden, not optimistic. We'll see if they actually read the Bruen decision.

CA AG appealed the Renna v Bona decision, but I don't know which CA9 judges were assigned.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

143
I knew a decision was coming but I forgot to check the status. Renna vs Bonta is a case in the US district court SDCA, San Diego before the chief judge of the district. It was stayed pending appeal and the CA AG has appealed it appealed it to the 9th Circuit.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firear ... 1680557157
Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions);
CLI is chamber load indicator, MDM is magazine disconnect mechanism. In CA law 3 handguns must be removed from the CA Roster of approved handguns for every 1 handgun added.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

145
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 7:01 am
highdesert wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:26 amIn CA law 3 handguns must be removed from the CA Roster of approved handguns for every 1 handgun added.
Why? What is the stated purpose of removing 3 for every 1 added?
We all suspect that the ultimate goal of the CA Gun Roster is to reduce the number of handguns available for sale to zero and this was one step to get closer to that goal. The Reload had an article last year.
https://thereload.com/california-sudden ... te-roster/

The California Legislature dominated by Democrats can pass any damn gun bill they want, they have supermajorities in both chambers.

The state law was AB 2847 signed by Newsom last year.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0200AB2847
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

146
highdesert wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:26 am I knew a decision was coming but I forgot to check the status. Renna vs Bonta is a case in the US district court SDCA, San Diego before the chief judge of the district. It was stayed pending appeal and the CA AG has appealed it appealed it to the 9th Circuit.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firear ... 1680557157
Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions);
CLI is chamber load indicator, MDM is magazine disconnect mechanism. In CA law 3 handguns must be removed from the CA Roster of approved handguns for every 1 handgun added.
You missed the part where it was simultaneously stayed pending appeal. So the roster is still alive and well (except microstamping that does indeed appear to be stayed).

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

147
featureless wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 9:28 am
highdesert wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:26 am I knew a decision was coming but I forgot to check the status. Renna vs Bonta is a case in the US district court SDCA, San Diego before the chief judge of the district. It was stayed pending appeal and the CA AG has appealed it appealed it to the 9th Circuit.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firear ... 1680557157
Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions);
CLI is chamber load indicator, MDM is magazine disconnect mechanism. In CA law 3 handguns must be removed from the CA Roster of approved handguns for every 1 handgun added.
You missed the part where it was simultaneously stayed pending appeal. So the roster is still alive and well (except microstamping that does indeed appear to be stayed).
I expect the 9th Circuit panel will stay the whole ruling. And this case will join the queue of other firearms cases at the 9th that we might hear about within the next 5 years.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

148
highdesert wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:38 am
featureless wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 9:28 am
highdesert wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:26 am I knew a decision was coming but I forgot to check the status. Renna vs Bonta is a case in the US district court SDCA, San Diego before the chief judge of the district. It was stayed pending appeal and the CA AG has appealed it appealed it to the 9th Circuit.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firear ... 1680557157
Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions);
CLI is chamber load indicator, MDM is magazine disconnect mechanism. In CA law 3 handguns must be removed from the CA Roster of approved handguns for every 1 handgun added.
You missed the part where it was simultaneously stayed pending appeal. So the roster is still alive and well (except microstamping that does indeed appear to be stayed).
I expect the 9th Circuit panel will stay the whole ruling. And this case will join the queue of other firearms cases at the 9th that we might hear about within the next 5 years.
This dem strategy is depressing. It simply means most of us won’t see changes in our lifetimes if we are older. Which means even the rights of those of us outside of California are at threat until these unconstitutional laws are struck down.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

149
sikacz wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:56 am
highdesert wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:38 am
featureless wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 9:28 am
highdesert wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 6:26 am I knew a decision was coming but I forgot to check the status. Renna vs Bonta is a case in the US district court SDCA, San Diego before the chief judge of the district. It was stayed pending appeal and the CA AG has appealed it appealed it to the 9th Circuit.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firear ... 1680557157



CLI is chamber load indicator, MDM is magazine disconnect mechanism. In CA law 3 handguns must be removed from the CA Roster of approved handguns for every 1 handgun added.
You missed the part where it was simultaneously stayed pending appeal. So the roster is still alive and well (except microstamping that does indeed appear to be stayed).
I expect the 9th Circuit panel will stay the whole ruling. And this case will join the queue of other firearms cases at the 9th that we might hear about within the next 5 years.
This dem strategy is depressing. It simply means most of us won’t see changes in our lifetimes if we are older. Which means even the rights of those of us outside of California are at threat until these unconstitutional laws are struck down.
Yes. Even though microstamping is currently enjoined, the state is working to pass a bill this year that will require any handgun transfered or sold to have microstamping by 2027. Unfukingbelievable.

Re: Legislative/regulatory retaliation for NYSRPV v. Bruen decision by SCOTUS

150
featureless wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 11:49 am
sikacz wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:56 am
highdesert wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:38 am
featureless wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 9:28 am

You missed the part where it was simultaneously stayed pending appeal. So the roster is still alive and well (except microstamping that does indeed appear to be stayed).
I expect the 9th Circuit panel will stay the whole ruling. And this case will join the queue of other firearms cases at the 9th that we might hear about within the next 5 years.
This dem strategy is depressing. It simply means most of us won’t see changes in our lifetimes if we are older. Which means even the rights of those of us outside of California are at threat until these unconstitutional laws are struck down.
Yes. Even though microstamping is currently enjoined, the state is working to pass a bill this year that will require any handgun transfered or sold to have microstamping by 2027. Unfukingbelievable.
Only one purpose for this elimination of private gun ownership. Military and the police no doubt will not be expected to comply.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests