Other State California: AG abandons “fee-shifting” law

[E4mafia]

California's Attorney General Jumps Ship on Defending Unconstitutional State Law

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.

www.ammoland.com

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.

Read More

 

[Stomper]

They're petulant, and petty children.

 

[User 1234]

But the California governor is stepping in to defend it. He filed a motion to intervene today.

 

[msgriff]

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.

 

[dangerranger60]

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

 

[L84Cabo]

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.

 

[Yarome]

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.

 

[br1sket]

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?

 

[Provincial]

I wonder if, by hiring legal representation and intervening directly in the suit, Newsome is "conspiring to deny constitutional rights" to the affected parties?

 

[Yarome]

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.

 

[lcb97269]

California's Attorney General Jumps Ship on Defending Unconstitutional State Law

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.

www.ammoland.com

Farg Californicators.

 

[E4mafia]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664698204628176902

FPC VICTORY: Federal Judge Blocks California’s Discriminatory Firearm Lawsuit Fee-Shifting Regime

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge Roger Benitez has issued an order enjoining the fee-shifting provision in California SB 1327, which was enacted as retribution for Texas’s SB 8 abortion law in order to suppress legitimate challenges to firearms...

www.firearmspolicy.org

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664700446542548992

I like his tidbit in that tweet

In any sane state, purposefully passing and singing an unconstitutional law would get all the politicians involved impeached, especially when it cost taxpayers a fortune.

Didn't 114 acknowledge that even if found unconstitutional it still applies?

 

[PiratePast40]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664698204628176902

FPC VICTORY: Federal Judge Blocks California’s Discriminatory Firearm Lawsuit Fee-Shifting Regime

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge Roger Benitez has issued an order enjoining the fee-shifting provision in California SB 1327, which was enacted as retribution for Texas’s SB 8 abortion law in order to suppress legitimate challenges to firearms...

www.firearmspolicy.org

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664700446542548992

I like his tidbit in that tweet


Didn't 114 acknowledge that even if found unconstitutional it still applies?

If any portion is found unconstitutional or illegal, the remaining portions still stand.

 

[billdeserthills]

California Violated the Second Amendment by Disarming People Based on Nullified Convictions

California violated the Second Amendment by disarming people based on nullified convictions

A federal judge ruled that three men who committed nonviolent felonies decades ago are entitled to buy, own, and possess guns.

reason.com