Other State California's Mag Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

[Slobray]

Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Ex-Parte Application for Temporary Stay of the Judgment

The rebuttal

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...nse-to-Plaintiffs-Opp-to-Ex-Parte-to-Stay.pdf

Plaintiffs "understand the State's concerns." (Opp'n at 2:4.) Nevertheless, they oppose Defendant's reasonable and limited request for a temporary stay while the Court considers the ex parte application for a stay of the Judgment pending appeal out of concern that individuals who have ordered new LCMs would be in violation of California Penal Code section 32310(a).Plaintiffs offer no evidence that there are any Californians who have either ordered or are currently in possession of LCMs in reliance on the Court's ruling. And even if such residents exist, that does not militate against a stay.
////snip/////
Nothing prevents this Court from fashioning appropriate interim relief for persons who take possession of LCMs purchased between the issuance of the Judgment and an order staying the effect of that Judgment, if there are any such individuals.

Really?

Companies Crushed With Heavy Demand For Gun Magazines From California

Is the AG really that ignorant or is he just pretending?



Ray

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Read your Constitution folks...

I've read it many times. Not only that, when I took Constitutional Law in law school I was responsible for correctly understanding it. I briefed several thousand SCOTUS decisions ferreting out the nuances of case law that distinguish the finer points of those historical decisions from one another.

CA's law violated the federal constitution. Period. Full stop. Magazines are arms according to the decision. CA's law outlawed a class of arms arbitrarily and without regard to any tests or levels of scrutiny. The CA AG presented nothing that refuted the plaintiff's case, and no evidence that the law was narrowly tailored to fit any overriding interests of the state, nor was any credible evidence presented linking such interests to a necessity for the existence of the law. Therefor, summary judgment to the plaintiff.

 

[User 1234]

The judge won't have to look far to find their contradiction; in the State's request for a stay they attached a Palmetto and said "there is evidence that purchases have already begun."

The rebuttal

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...nse-to-Plaintiffs-Opp-to-Ex-Parte-to-Stay.pdf


Really?

Companies Crushed With Heavy Demand For Gun Magazines From California

Is the AG really that ignorant or is he just pretending?



Ray

 

[Slobray]

The judge won't have to look far to find their contradiction; in the State's request for a stay they attached a Palmetto and said "there is evidence that purchases have already begun."

Good catch, I totally overlooked the previous request...........

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-Ex-Parte-to-Stay-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf

California has restricted the acquisition of LCMs for nearly two decades, and until the Judgment is stayed pending appeal, individuals will be free to acquire new LCMs, and there is evidence that sales have begun already. If Section 32310 is ultimately reinstated by the Ninth Circuit, it will be difficult for the State to remove these new LCMs.

Ray

 

[titsonritz]

I've read it many times. Not only that, when I took Constitutional Law in law school I was responsible for correctly understanding it. I briefed several thousand SCOTUS decisions ferreting out the nuances of case law that distinguish the finer points of those historical decisions from one another.

CA's law violated the federal constitution. Period. Full stop. Magazines are arms according to the decision. CA's law outlawed a class of arms arbitrarily and without regard to any tests or levels of scrutiny. The CA AG presented nothing that refuted the plaintiff's case, and no evidence that the law was narrowly tailored to fit any overriding interests of the state, nor was any credible evidence presented linking such interests to a necessity for the existence of the law. Therefor, summary judgment to the plaintiff.

Yeah, but I feel...

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Here's something to remember. When a law restricts a constitutional right, in order for that law to be constitutional it must address a legitimate public policy concern, the law must be narrowly tailored to address that concern and at the same time place as little burden on that right as possible, and there must be some legitimate expectation or proof that the law actually will have the desired effect. That negates most gun laws if we could ever get them to SCOTUS. The judge in this case disqualified CA's magazine law on all three requirements.

 

[etrain16]

Here's something to remember. When a law restricts a constitutional right, in order for that law to be constitutional it must address a legitimate public policy concern, the law must be narrowly tailored to address that concern and at the same time place as little burden on that right as possible, and there must be some legitimate expectation or proof that the law actually will have the desired effect. That negates most gun laws if we could ever get them to SCOTUS. The judge in this case disqualified CA's magazine law on all three requirements.

Really appreciate your educated input on this.

 

[awshoot]

[from the state's brief - note scare quotes]

Plaintiffs "understand the State's concerns." (Opp'n at 2:4.) Nevertheless, they oppose Defendant's reasonable and limited request for a temporary stay while the Court considers the ex parte application for ... .Plaintiffs offer no evidence that there are any Californians who have either ordered or are currently in possession of LCMs in reliance on the Court's ruling. And even if such residents exist, that does not militate against a stay.

Man -- the sarcasm in the State's brief was palpable. I'm therefor pleased to see Plaintiffs fire back a bit in their full reply just filed today (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...nse-to-Plaintiffs-Opp-to-Ex-Parte-to-Stay.pdf ):

The State also claims that it will be irreparably harmed if Californians continue purchasing the now-legal magazines because, the State imagines, it will lead to increased fatalities and injuries in mass shootings. Mot. at 9:12-22. To begin with, the State's own arguments undercut its claim. For the State's motion rests on an assurance that magazines over ten rounds will flood into California, irreparably harming the State and its residents by their presence. Id. But the State more recently complained that there is no evidence that anyone has purchased these magazines. Compare id., with Reply. To the extent the State sincerely believes that Californians have not been ordering magazines over ten rounds, it would seem there is no need for the injunction at all.

*zing*

 

[awshoot]

Neat -- a declaration by the President and CEO of Palmetto State Armory was filed with the Plaintiff's opposition brief referenced in the post above. Here is the declaration: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...O-Plaintiffs-Brief-to-Defendants-Ex-Parte.pdf

Here is the meat:

Since the issuance of the Order, Palmetto State Armory has received, accepted, processed, and shipped orders from thousands of residents of the State of California for firearm magazines with a capacity greater than ten (10) rounds.

 

[tkdguy]

Sounds, hysterical "irreparable harm". How so? Law abiding citizens do not harm others, other than in lawful self-defense? This is a jousting match?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

It's fun watching the state, which is used to having everything their own way because they said so, have to actually argue a case. That takes more than talking points and being photogenic.

 

[Goosebrown]

It's fun watching the state, which is used to having everything their own way because they said so, have to actually argue a case. That takes more than talking points and being photogenic.

We need to follow federal law? When did that start?

 

[Defense Minister]

This makes me giddy!

 

[GWS]

U

Sounds, hysterical "irreparable harm". How so? Law abiding citizens do not harm others, other than in lawful self-defense? This is a jousting match?

Yes, but an easy one for the Second Amendment, California is scrambling to come up with reasons for a stay but they have no valid ones. So they use hyperbole (irreparable harm? Puhleeeze...)because they have nothing else.

 

[Defense Minister]

In a big way I really hope this will be challenged and end up with the SCOTUS in order to bring the same joy to IL, MA, NJ, HI, MD, and any other fascist states!

 

[tkdguy]

What is the status of Oregon's legislative hysteria on "high capacity magazines"? And banning AR 15? The way the legal cases are being decided i'd think they would be looking at a smack down in the high courts.

 

[Defense Minister]

There's some really good, up-to-the-"minute" info here on CalGuns.net. Sounds like it may be moving to the 9th Circus. Here is the stay of judgment, also signed by Judge Benitez. In layman's terms, all Californians who purchase large, standard-capacity magazines Mar. 29 through 1700 PST, April 5 are immune from prosecution, but no more mags can be shipped to CA beginning April 6. They are also granted immunity from prosecution for mere possession of said magazines pending a lifting of the stay or appeal proceedings that favor Judge Benitez's decision to overturn the unconstitutional law.

You may need to click on the photo below in order to expand and read it in its entirety.

This post is NOT legal advice!

 

[coop44]

Pretty hard to overturn this decision. The "Heller" argument is solid. I can only hope this will lead to further restrictions in California being lifted.

 

[Camelfilter]

Pretty hard to overturn this decision. The "Heller" argument is solid. I can only hope this will lead to further restrictions in California being lifted.

Yah.

Great for Cali if it stays, risky if it goes to Supreme Court. But the national ramifications if it does go, and stays a win, are HUGE!

 

[tkdguy]

I'm missing something. Did the Judge for the Southern District stay his decision and the stay goes into effect tomorrow at 5 pm and then, pending the outcome of a 9th district appeal and decision by the 9th court?