District Court (S. District CA) Blocks CA Ammo Sale Law

[pdsmith505]

Link to the order granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction here:

https://pdfhost.io/v/p3nFQxMjZ_Rhod...8kz-y14VItFaYSLY3h7BjFKK9oSw_XEz6xiRhpZWfSyjw

Edit: Link to the order from Michael and Associates:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-23-Order-Granting-MPI.pdf

TLDR Version:

Judge Roger T. Benitez says CA's ammo background check law likely violates 2nd Amendment and Dormant Commerce Clause and enjoins CA from enforcing "California Penal Code §§ 30370(a) through (d) and 30352, and the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in §§ 30312(a) and (b), and 30314(a) as well as the criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§ 30365, 30312(d) and 30314(c)."

 

[Mk-211]

Can we keep this one open?

Hopefully CA doesn't challenge it and have it locked up again like the mag ban.

 

[pdsmith505]

Can we keep this one open?

Hopefully CA doesn't challenge it and have it locked up again like the mag ban.

I posted and made sure to provide the order so it wouldn't get closed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Link to the order granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction here:

https://pdfhost.io/v/p3nFQxMjZ_Rhod...8kz-y14VItFaYSLY3h7BjFKK9oSw_XEz6xiRhpZWfSyjw....

Thank you for finding and posting a link to the order.

Can we keep this one open?....

Here's how it works. If you want to discuss a court decision or a court order, and want the thread open to do so, someone needs to post a link to the actual decision and/or order. And the discussion needs to be based on the actual decision and/or order.

It's pointless to try to have a serious discussion on a legal matter based on stories from the news media or on press releases.

 

[pdsmith505]

Thank you for finding and posting a link to the order.

Credit goes to Allen Beck (for those who aren't familiar with him, he was the lead attorney in Young v HI). He wasn't part of this lawsuit, of course, but he does a great service finding and uploading relevant firearms case documents so people can read them themselves. I imagine Michael and Associates have a copy on their page too, but this Beck's link popped up on the 'book.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

???

I get this is a real injunction, because it's being carried by MSM sources all over the place.

But who the heck wrote this thing? It reads EXACTLY like something I'd expect from an internet forum or a really gung-ho, pro-gun magazine.

 

[pdsmith505]

???

I get this is a real injunction, because it's being carried by MSM sources all over the place.

But who the heck wrote this thing? It reads EXACTLY like something I'd expect from an internet forum or a really gung-ho, pro-gun magazine.

You should read the same Judge's order regarding "hi-cap" mags in CA... resulted in a week where CA residents could legally obtain magazines of any size and keep them pending final resolution of the case (sitting in wait in the 9th circuit right now). It's pretty good too:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

 

[Dudedog]

I like the way Judge Roger T. Benitez thinks, wish we had more like him.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Judge Benitez' reasoning appears thorough, although we don't have the benefit of seeing the full record. For me, it was a terrific read.

In one of my favorite sections, he contrasted the 9th Circuit's convoluted decision-making process regarding the appropriate level of scrutiny to be used in 2nd amendment cases (the tripart binary test with a sliding scale and a reasonable fit) to the test "...any citizen can understand..." required by Heller. See pages 50-63.

For those who don't want to read the whole document, his conclusion (pages 117-120) resonates with me. Particularly the main paragraph on page 118. It is worth everyone's time to read, independent of background in the law.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Predictably, California's Attorney General requested a stay of the preliminary injunction. Judge Benitez refused.

Text of ruling available in a link on this page:

https://www.nraila.org/media/2859/rhode-order-denying-stay.pdf

 

[Ignition Override]

I saw that on AKfiles, last night.

That excellent legal precedent in CA might become the initial legal basis (help me with the terminology if you want) to prevent such laws from ever being passed in other states which want to be a "CA anti-US Constitution Wannabe?"

 

[natman]

I saw that on AKfiles, last night.

That excellent legal precedent in CA might become the initial legal basis (help me with the terminology if you want) to prevent such laws from ever being passed in other states which want to be a "CA anti-US Constitution Wannabe?"

I believe the word you're looking for is "precedent".

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Ninth Circuit has stayed the preliminary injunction: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...0-4-24-ca9-order-granting-stay.pdf?1587793502

 

[Dudedog]

For those of us who don’t have a legal background it would be helpful if someone could explain the legal maneuverings going on here.
(yes I should know more about how this works, and could research it but sometimes it is easier to ask someone who knows the answer, some might call this lazy)


1 Injunction issues
2 State requests stay
3 Judge Benitez denies State’s request
4 State Requests again?
5 Two different Judges approve stay

So now it waits to go to trial or can the Plaintiffs go back and try to get more/different Judges on the 9th to "un-approve" the stay"?


Murguia is an Obama Appointee, but Bennett is a Trump Appointee.
I would have hoped that Bennett would not have agreed with the State.

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

The Ninth Circuit has stayed the preliminary injunction: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...0-4-24-ca9-order-granting-stay.pdf?1587793502

Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[pdsmith505]

1 Injunction issues
2 State requests stay
3 Judge Benitez denies State’s request
4 State Requests again?
5 Two different Judges approve stay

(4) CA's motion to the 9th Circuit to stay the PI after being denied a stay by Judge Benetiz:
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachment...55f7ca/e19ca2c1/RhodevBecerraMotiontoStay.pdf

Murguia is an Obama Appointee, but Bennett is a Trump Appointee.
I would have hoped that Bennett would not have agreed with the State.

Bennett was nominated for his seat, I believe, because that particular seat had to be filled by someone from from Hawaii. 27 senators (all republican) voted against his nomination citing a poor record on 2A issues.

 

[boom boom]

It is a temporary stay which is fairly usual when the losing side decides to appeal the preliminary injunction.

It should not necessarily be viewed as how the 9th Circuit panel will decide the case and in part, the appellate courts may be waiting for the Supreme Court to clarify any 2A issues in pending cases.

 

[boom boom]

To continue,
A preliminary injunction is issued when one party alleges irreparable harm if the conduct of the other party continues. This is done before a final determination of the merits of the case has been done by the trial court.

The following is a brief description of the process and the ruling Supreme Court precedent on when and under what criteria a preliminary injunction can be issued by a lower court.

 

[luzyfuerza]

A couple of questions:

1) are pre-trial motions, discovery, etc., all complete and is a trial ready to begin in Rhodes v. Becerra, and

2) are there any issues that are likely to be addressed in a SCOTUS ruling in New York RPA v. City of New York that could be applicable to Rhodes?