Messages
2,861
Reactions
6,078

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)-The California Attorney General's office has stepped away from defending the constitutionality of the state's new "fee-shifting" law related to legal challenges of gun laws, and as a result, Gov. Gavin

has hired a private law firm to intervene in two legal actions, Miller v. Bonta and South Bay Rod & Gun Club, Inc., v. Bonta. The defendants' supplemental brief may be read here.



Miller v. Bonta is a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and several other plaintiffs. Rob Bonta is California's attorney general. South Bay Rod & Gun Club, Inc. v. Bonta is a case brought by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and several other plaintiffs. Both cases are in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Attorneys for both legal actions received word from Newsom's attorney the Attorney General's office had advised the governor "that it did not intend to defend the validity" of the contested section of the law.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said this unusual development suggests the state's position is in trouble.

"As noted in the defendant's supplemental brief to the federal court," Gottlieb said, "the Attorney General 'is not in a position to defend the merits of a provision that is indistinguishable in relevant part from a provision that he has opined is unconstitutional.' Bonta is in something of an embarrassing bind. He can't defend a law that is nearly a mirror image of a Texas statute he has already declared is unconstitutional.
"It's going to be interesting to see how the governor's attorney will defend a law California's attorney general has essentially declared bogus by its similarity to another state's law he stated is unconstitutional," Gottlieb said.
The Attorney General's supplemental brief informing the court that they will not defend the statute clearly acknowledges California's statute was "a reaction to" the Texas law, which deals with abortion. In an attempt to retaliate, Newsom has tried to penalize gun rights groups, plaintiffs and their attorneys.

"This is what happens when you try to be too clever by half by using low-caliber legal arguments." Gottlieb said.
 
Messages
409
Reactions
1,007
FYI on what I think I know regarding fee-shifting:
Kalifornia recently enacted a law that says if you file a lawsuit against the State regarding your 2nd Amendment rights and lose, you must pay the State for all costs that the State incurred defending the lawsuit.
 
Messages
837
Reactions
1,584
FYI on what I think I know regarding fee-shifting:
Kalifornia recently enacted a law that says if you file a lawsuit against the State regarding your 2nd Amendment rights and lose, you must pay the State for all costs that the State incurred defending the lawsuit.
According to the way I read it You would have to pay the State's costs win or loose! DR
 
Messages
3,464
Reactions
9,906
He can't defend a law that is nearly a mirror image of a Texas statute he has already declared is unconstitutional.

"It's going to be interesting to see how the governor's attorney will defend a law California's attorney general has essentially declared bogus by its similarity to another state's law he stated is unconstitutional," Gottlieb said.

uyneKm5.jpg
 
Messages
4,017
Reactions
8,066
According to the way I read it You would have to pay the State's costs win or loose! DR
I think it's... if you loose any part of the suit, even if you prevail overall... you pay.

IE., a lawsuit often seeks multiple or different levels of remedy. So... say... 9 out of 10 of your suit claims wins, but one minor point is dismissed or denied.... you're on the hook to pay the state.

100% of your suit has to prevail.
 
Messages
66
Reactions
141
How can that possibly be constitutional? If you file a lawsuit against the state because your first amendment rights are infringed, do you have to pay as well? how can you legally single out one enumarted right and not another?
 
Messages
4,017
Reactions
8,066
I wonder if, by hiring legal representation and intervening directly in the suit, Newsome is "conspiring to deny constitutional rights" to the affected parties?
I say let him! When it falls flat on it's a** he'll look even the dumber a**hole than he already does. Personally pursuing a losing battle after your own AG has already deemed it unconstitutional and refusing to take any further action?

That's next level megalomania. I don't think anyone should attempt to stand in the way of him burying himself and potentionally softening his fall.
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top