Rhode v. Bonta - California Ammo purchase background check

[Upholder]

Court Docket:

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6378064/rhode-v-becerra/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-79

[Upholder]

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.

[Upholder]

 

[mauserme]

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:

 

 

 

[Upholder]

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)

[hceuterpe]

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

[Plinkermostly]

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.

[Upholder]

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

[Upholder]

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.

[Hap]

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.

[Upholder]

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

[hceuterpe]

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...

[Plinkermostly]

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.

[Euler]

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.

[Upholder]

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

[Hap]

I'm beginning to detect a certain pattern to the responses./s

Edited February 22, 2023 at 04:17 PM by Hap