Jump to content


Photo

Rupp v. Becerra - CA judge upholds semi auto ban, not protected under 2A


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#31 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,554 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 30 July 2019 - 01:58 PM

I cannot discuss that which I have not analyzed. All I have read so far is the 23 page order for summary judgement, from which one can infer some of what is in the record, but certainly not all. I could quote more from it, such as:

 

More fundamentally, Plaintiffs argue that California is “depriving the public of more accurate rifles that are easier to control.” (See, e.g.,Plaintiffs’ Opp. at 15.) Plaintiffs miss the point. More fundamentally, Plaintiffs argue that California is “depriving the public of more accurate rifles that are easier to control.” (See, e.g.,Plaintiffs’ Opp. at 15.) Plaintiffs miss the point. As discussed throughout, that the rifles are more accurate and easier to control is precisely why California has chosen to ban them.

 

Here's the judge also admonishing the plaintiffs again that they "miss the point" when claiming that cosmetic features are technically meaningless:

 

Plaintiffs miss the point—the enumerated features increase the capabilities of semiautomatic rifles and thereby enhance their capacity for mass violence. [ ... ] The Attorney General’s expert notes that “[a]djustable stocks also contribute to the control of the rifle in that they allow the shooter to optimize the rifle to their arm length.” (See Mersereau Report ¶ 10, Ex. 3 to Chang Decl., Doc. 76-3.) “This increases the shooter’s ability to rapidly send rounds down range with increased accuracy.”

 

However, I strongly suggest reading it, it's just 23 pages, and reads as a paean to the efficacy of banning semi-automatic rifles. The judge uncritically accepts and quotes liberally from amicus briefs from Everytown, and gives great weight to the arguments and briefs of the defendants, while largely summarily dismissing all arguments made by the plaintiffs. Again, this is clearly a decision written by a judge pre-disposed to accept essentially any argument supporting a blanket ban on semi-automatic "assault" rifles, and likewise pre-disposed to dismiss any arguments, regardless of efficacy, against such a ban.

 

If you go to https://www.courtlis...xavier-becerra/ you can obtain a limited number of other documents. Importantly, you can read the 3rd amended complaint, and the defendant argument for summary judgement -- neither of which I have had time to read yet.

 

Sailor, thank you very much for the response. Didn't really mean to put you on the spot, but you clearly have a much greater comprehension of the legal jargon than most here, so your interpretation is very much valued. Thank you for what you have shared.



#32 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,023 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 30 July 2019 - 02:38 PM

So, this is now headed up to the full Ninth, and I can't imagine that it won't end up headed for the Supreme Court after that.

 

I always thought that the Miller decision, with the "useful for military purposes" was what the Gub'mint used to deny unusual weapons. There REALLY needs to be a squaring that the Second Amendment means that the people are the militia, who need weapons suitable and commensurate with the standing military, for purposes of self-defense and security against both individual attackers and threats to the Constitution, the country, and civil rights.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#33 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,084 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 30 July 2019 - 03:27 PM

I wouldn't COMPLETELY discount the possibility of CA9 reversing this judge. There's a few more conservative judges on the court now and they've been making waves. District judge originally found in favor of PP in re Trump order stripping PP of funds. Reversed 2-1 by panel, affirmed 7-4 by en banc panel. It really depends on who's on the original panel because they're automatically on the en banc panel and so are their original votes. That being said, I don't expect CA9 to allow this to be reversed. There's ample evidence of CA9 cherry picking panels. Don't know if that practice has been reigned in. Certain judges would hear certain "types" of cases i.e. gay marriage. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#34 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 13 August 2019 - 12:37 AM

So, this is now headed up to the full Ninth, and I can't imagine that it won't end up headed for the Supreme Court after that.

 

I always thought that the Miller decision, with the "useful for military purposes" was what the Gub'mint used to deny unusual weapons. There REALLY needs to be a squaring that the Second Amendment means that the people are the militia, who need weapons suitable and commensurate with the standing military, for purposes of self-defense and security against both individual attackers and threats to the Constitution, the country, and civil rights.

 

The Miller decision, consistent with several 19th-century decisions, held that only weapons of war are protected by the Second Amendment.  For example, firearms which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed (e.g., the sawed-off shotgun in Miller) "are not borne as arms" and therefore are not protected by the Second Amendment.

 

The Heller decision changed all of that.  Heller said that the only thing that Miller stands for is that some (unspecified arms) are not protected by the Second Amendment. 

 

Justice Alito (who wrote the McDonald decision) is not a fan of sawed-off shotguns because,

 

"As we recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 625 (2008), sawed-off shotguns are “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Instead, they are uniquely attractive to violent criminals. Much easier to conceal than long-barreled shotguns used for hunting and other lawful purposes, short-barreled shotguns can be hidden under a coat, tucked into a bag, or stowed under a car seat. And like a handgun, they can be fired with one hand—except to more lethal effect. These weapons thus combine the deadly characteristics of conventional shotguns with the more convenient handling of handguns. Unlike those common firearms, however, they are not typically possessed for lawful purposes. And when a person illegally possesses a sawed-off shotgun during the commission of a crime, the risk of violence is seriously increased. The ordinary case of unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun therefore “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”  Johnson v. United States (2015) Justice Alito, dissenting.

 

Which kind of explains why Justice Alito has never written, or joined, in a dissent to a denial of cert in a 2A case.

 

On the plus side, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a dissent (Heller II) which argued that semi-automatic rifles, including those labeled as "assault rifles" are arms protected by the Second Amendment.  This improves the chances of SCOTUS taking up an "assault rifle" case unless the petitioner does something stupid such as arguing that the Heller decision said that machine-guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment.

In my book they are, and according to Justice Scalia (who wrote the Heller decision), SCOTUS hasn't answered that question.  But I am not a Supreme Court justice.and Justice Kavanaugh is.  He has read the Heller decision to say that machine-guns can be banned.


Concealed carry is of no use to me because I don't carry a purse or wear a dress, and I'm not into secret advantage and unmanly assassination.

 

"Should the Open Carry movement become successful it will result in the greatest dissolution of government power since the collapse of the Soviet Union." - Charles Nichols
 
"If a monkey looks into a book, a sage cannot look out." - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
 
"La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas." - Charles Baudelaire 
 
"God doesn't want me and the devil isn't finished with me." - Raymond Reddington
 
"When you lift the last veil, you might discover that your bride is an ignorant, illiterate child living in a world of fear and superstition." - Charles Nichols.* 
 
* I posted this on my Facebook page on May 20, 2011.  Unable to find its origin, I claim to be its creator.

#35 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,023 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 13 August 2019 - 07:04 AM

 

So, this is now headed up to the full Ninth, and I can't imagine that it won't end up headed for the Supreme Court after that.

 

I always thought that the Miller decision, with the "useful for military purposes" was what the Gub'mint used to deny unusual weapons. There REALLY needs to be a squaring that the Second Amendment means that the people are the militia, who need weapons suitable and commensurate with the standing military, for purposes of self-defense and security against both individual attackers and threats to the Constitution, the country, and civil rights.

 

The Miller decision, consistent with several 19th-century decisions, held that only weapons of war are protected by the Second Amendment.  For example, firearms which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed (e.g., the sawed-off shotgun in Miller) "are not borne as arms" and therefore are not protected by the Second Amendment.

 

The Heller decision changed all of that.  Heller said that the only thing that Miller stands for is that some (unspecified arms) are not protected by the Second Amendment. 

 

Justice Alito (who wrote the McDonald decision) is not a fan of sawed-off shotguns because,

 

"As we recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 625 (2008), sawed-off shotguns are “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Instead, they are uniquely attractive to violent criminals. Much easier to conceal than long-barreled shotguns used for hunting and other lawful purposes, short-barreled shotguns can be hidden under a coat, tucked into a bag, or stowed under a car seat. And like a handgun, they can be fired with one hand—except to more lethal effect. These weapons thus combine the deadly characteristics of conventional shotguns with the more convenient handling of handguns. Unlike those common firearms, however, they are not typically possessed for lawful purposes. And when a person illegally possesses a sawed-off shotgun during the commission of a crime, the risk of violence is seriously increased. The ordinary case of unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun therefore “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”  Johnson v. United States (2015) Justice Alito, dissenting.

 

Which kind of explains why Justice Alito has never written, or joined, in a dissent to a denial of cert in a 2A case.

 

On the plus side, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a dissent (Heller II) which argued that semi-automatic rifles, including those labeled as "assault rifles" are arms protected by the Second Amendment.  This improves the chances of SCOTUS taking up an "assault rifle" case unless the petitioner does something stupid such as arguing that the Heller decision said that machine-guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment.

In my book they are, and according to Justice Scalia (who wrote the Heller decision), SCOTUS hasn't answered that question.  But I am not a Supreme Court justice.and Justice Kavanaugh is.  He has read the Heller decision to say that machine-guns can be banned.

 

 

That about sums up what I understand about the situation.

 

However, considering that the Founding Fathers wanted the People to have the equivalent of whatever weapons the government had, weapons of war including machine guns or whatever arms the government has, need to be finally written as allowable to the People, who are the "well-regulated Militia."

 

This does need to stop there.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users