Upholder Posted January 12, 2023 at 07:07 PM Share Posted January 12, 2023 at 07:07 PM Court Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6378064/rhode-v-becerra/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-79 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 12, 2023 at 07:09 PM Author Share Posted January 12, 2023 at 07:09 PM 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 More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 7, 2023 at 10:00 PM Author Share Posted February 7, 2023 at 10:00 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted February 8, 2023 at 12:45 AM Share Posted February 8, 2023 at 12:45 AM On 2/7/2023 at 4:00 PM, Upholder said: Would it be possible to include links when posting twitter screen caps? And maybe a a clean version of the text being tweeted? Here's a link to that one. It says: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 8, 2023 at 01:05 AM Author Share Posted February 8, 2023 at 01:05 AM 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 More sharing options...
hceuterpe Posted February 8, 2023 at 04:18 AM Share Posted February 8, 2023 at 04:18 AM (edited) 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 February 8, 2023 at 04:19 AM by hceuterpe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted February 8, 2023 at 01:54 PM Share Posted February 8, 2023 at 01:54 PM On 2/7/2023 at 10:18 PM, hceuterpe said: Tbh that order sounds like a teacher assigning a remedial term paper to a student who couldn't follow instructions the first time.😂 Excellent comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 11, 2023 at 04:08 PM Author Share Posted February 11, 2023 at 04:08 PM (edited) 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 February 11, 2023 at 04:08 PM by Upholder formatting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 11, 2023 at 04:31 PM Author Share Posted February 11, 2023 at 04:31 PM 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 More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 11, 2023 at 05:46 PM Share Posted February 11, 2023 at 05:46 PM If someone is prohibited from owning firearms, the state’s move is to go get them, not to prohibit him from buying ammo. The ammo background check is, at best, just a way to get CA off the hook for failing to enforce its laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 11, 2023 at 06:31 PM Author Share Posted February 11, 2023 at 06:31 PM They make the claim several times in the two briefs dated 2/11 that "ghost guns" necessitate controlling ammunition purchases. Because if you can build your own firearm from an 80%, reloading is so much harder. /s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hceuterpe Posted February 11, 2023 at 06:56 PM Share Posted February 11, 2023 at 06:56 PM 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 More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted February 11, 2023 at 07:44 PM Share Posted February 11, 2023 at 07:44 PM 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 More sharing options...
Euler Posted February 11, 2023 at 09:13 PM Share Posted February 11, 2023 at 09:13 PM 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 More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 22, 2023 at 04:06 PM Author Share Posted February 22, 2023 at 04:06 PM Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Brief Re: Court's Order Entered on December 15 2022: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.571335/gov.uscourts.casd.571335.85.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 22, 2023 at 04:16 PM Share Posted February 22, 2023 at 04:16 PM (edited) I'm beginning to detect a certain pattern to the responses./s Edited February 22, 2023 at 04:17 PM by Hap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 31, 2024 at 06:26 PM Author Share Posted January 31, 2024 at 06:26 PM (edited) Benitez issued his opinion yesterday: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.571335/gov.uscourts.casd.571335.105.0.pdf Edited January 31, 2024 at 06:27 PM by Upholder Use the correct name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illinois Sucks Posted January 31, 2024 at 06:40 PM Share Posted January 31, 2024 at 06:40 PM (edited) 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 January 31, 2024 at 06:40 PM by Illinois Sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted January 31, 2024 at 06:44 PM Share Posted January 31, 2024 at 06:44 PM In before the stay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yurimodin Posted January 31, 2024 at 06:54 PM Share Posted January 31, 2024 at 06:54 PM On 1/31/2024 at 12:44 PM, davel501 said: In before the stay no kidding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 6, 2024 at 03:38 AM Author Share Posted February 6, 2024 at 03:38 AM And here's reporting that there is a stay. It's not available on Courtlistener yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yurimodin Posted February 6, 2024 at 04:23 PM Share Posted February 6, 2024 at 04:23 PM vote harder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted February 7, 2024 at 07:39 AM Share Posted February 7, 2024 at 07:39 AM 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 More sharing options...
Upholder Posted November 25, 2024 at 01:39 PM Author Share Posted November 25, 2024 at 01:39 PM https://x.com/2Aupdates/status/1861034165962977437 Rhode v. Bonta (9th Circuit): The panel is Bybee, Ikuta, and Bade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now