Jump to content

Rhode v. Bonta - California Ammo purchase background check


Upholder

Recommended Posts

The plaintiff's disagreements with the defendants supporting evidence of historical analogues:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.571335/gov.uscourts.casd.571335.79.3.pdf

 

 

I note that of the 148 entries, the first 106 (up to and including 1868) were racist in one form or another.. limiting by race or in some cases disqualifying non-Protestant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 2/7/2023 at 6:45 PM, mauserme said:

Would it be possible to include links when posting twitter screen caps?  And maybe a a clean version of the text being tweeted?

 

Certainly.  I'll do that going forward.

 

Here's the text from the docket linked in the first post of the thread:

 

80 - Feb 7, 2023 - MINUTE ORDER issued by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez: The State defendants are directed to file a brief which identifies the best historical regulation that is a proper analogue and relevantly similar to a statewide background check for buying ammunition. The brief shall be limited to five pages and shall be filed with the brief currently due 30 days after the filing of the law list. (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 02/07/2023)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2023 at 7:05 PM, Upholder said:

 

Certainly.  I'll do that going forward.

 

Here's the text from the docket linked in the first post of the thread:

 

80 - Feb 7, 2023 - MINUTE ORDER issued by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez: The State defendants are directed to file a brief which identifies the best historical regulation that is a proper analogue and relevantly similar to a statewide background check for buying ammunition. The brief shall be limited to five pages and shall be filed with the brief currently due 30 days after the filing of the law list. (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 02/07/2023)

 

Tbh that order sounds like a teacher assigning a remedial term paper to a student who couldn't follow instructions the first time.😂

Edited by hceuterpe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three new filings:

 

Defendant's Brief in response to the court's order entered on December 15, 2022:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.571335/gov.uscourts.casd.571335.81.0.pdf

 

Defendant's Brief in response to the court's order entered on February 7, 2023:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.571335/gov.uscourts.casd.571335.82.0.pdf

 

 

Paintiffs' Brief re: Relevant Analogs:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.571335/gov.uscourts.casd.571335.83.0.pdf

 

 

 

Edited by Upholder
formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the brief in response to Feb 7:

Quote

Any minimal burden imposed by the Ammunition Laws is comparably
justified by the public safety interest
in preventing prohibited persons from using
firearms. Both the Ammunition Laws and the background check requirements
sanctioned by the Supreme Court are means of enforcing existing prohibitions
under federal and state law. Like background checks for firearms purchases, the
Ammunition Laws’ background checks are designed to ensure that only “law-
abiding, responsible citizens” may purchase ammunition. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at
2131.

(emphasis added)

 

They just cannot help themselves from trying to back to the well of interest balancing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So another question that has been on my mind.  In the Bruen ruling, the 14th amendment is mentioned time again.   Specifically the equal protection clause is huge in that case specifically, along with Heller.

 

So why do the states keep throwing out racist gun restrictions in support of their bans, that would be found unconstitutional (due to 14th amendment) today?  Do they actually, honestly expect those specific laws to cite examples of, to actually stick and be valid?  Or are they just really bad lawyers???  These are some of the same people that champion equality and civil rights more vocally and louder than just about anyone, yet when the 2A rolls around all they can think about to justify their bans, is more historically racist bans...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2023 at 12:56 PM, hceuterpe said:

So another question that has been on my mind.  In the Bruen ruling, the 14th amendment is mentioned time again.   Specifically the equal protection clause is huge in that case specifically, along with Heller.

 

So why do the states keep throwing out racist gun restrictions in support of their bans, that would be found unconstitutional (due to 14th amendment) today?  Do they actually, honestly expect those specific laws to cite examples of, to actually stick and be valid?  Or are they just really bad lawyers???  These are some of the same people that champion equality and civil rights more vocally and louder than just about anyone, yet when the 2A rolls around all they can think about to justify their bans, is more historically racist bans...

 

'Cause it is all they got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2023 at 1:56 PM, hceuterpe said:

...

So why do the states keep throwing out racist gun restrictions in support of their bans, that would be found unconstitutional (due to 14th amendment) today?  ...

 

In part because:

On 2/11/2023 at 2:44 PM, Plinkermostly said:

'Cause it is all they got.

 

I suspect also because many (but not all) are Marxist. In particular, Marxism teaches that "freedom is oppression" (which Orwell ridiculed with "black is white" in 1984), so the 14th Amendment would be just wrong, and that justice requires reversing subjugation, not eliminating it ("workers of the world, unite"), so whites historically taking firearms away from non-whites justifies now taking firearms away from (predominantly) whites. It's revenge. They just need to find a judge who agrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 11 months later...
Quote

 

V. CONCLUSION The ammunition background checks laws have no historical pedigree and operate in such a way that they violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The anti-importation components violate the dormant Commerce Clause and to the extent applicable to individuals travelling into California are preempted by 18 U.S.C. § 926A. Perhaps the simpler, 4-year and $50 ammunition purchase permit approved by the voters in Proposition 63, would have fared better. Accordingly, the Court permanently enjoins the State of California from enforcing the ammunition sales background check provisions found in California Penal Code §§ 30352 and 30370(a) through (e), and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found 40 Id. at 24. Case 3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB Document 105 Filed 01/30/24 PageID.3457 Page 31 of 32 32 18-cv-802-BEN (JLB) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in §§ 30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a). Criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§ 30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a) by the Attorney General and all other law enforcement defendants is permanently enjoined.

 

 

 

 

 

Now do Illinois!!!

 

 

Edited by Illinois Sucks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 5, 2024 at 09:38 PM CST, Upholder said:
And here's reporting that there is a stay. It's not available on Courtlistener yet.

CA2 and CA9 are using a new computer system (for "new" cases) to which CourtListener does not have access. Therefore it won't be on CourtListener for some time yet. (That's why I've been copying the docket from Miller v Bonta to its topic here manually.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...