Other State Miller vs. Bonta (AWB) wrinkle?

[Yarome]

With the hearing scheduled for Monday, a bit of a potential issue has been brought up in the plantiffs ability to continue pushing the legal challenge forward.

CA's new law (Sen Bill 1327) requires that any challenge to any CA 2A related law, all court and attorney's fees accrued by the state must be paid for by the prevailing party. So... if the Honorable Judge Benitez rules in favor of the 2A (which he will) then the pro-2A side will not only be responsibe for their own legal and court fees to challenge that law, we will also be responsible to pay CA for all the legal fees CA has accruded in defense of their infringment law.

IOW, they know best, and if you try to tell them then are wrong or what they are doing is unconstitutional, then you have to foot the whole bill for both sides if you win.

Only Kalifederation could come up with something so unconstitutional in the fight against unconstitutional infringments. Friggin mind blower. Just make it offical already. Secede from the U.S. and be done with it!

Read More

 

[Yarome]

Additional: It looks like CA's senate bill won't immediately affect the legal challenge.

Reading through the actual bill, the effective date appears to be Jan 1, 2023. That gives us some breathing room, but unless it is challenged, pushing it through the 9th circuit could really burn the pro-2A side, even if we prevail.

 

[kmk1012]

Weird rule down there, coming from weird people, go figure.

 

[User 1234]

The federal court will have to decide the question of whether this fee-shifting statute applies to cases in federal court. Is it procedural or substantive? You can search for "Erie doctrine" to read more about it.

Where it would surely apply is in state court, which is where plaintiffs generally have to file challenges to state regulations under the state's Administrative Procedures Act.

 

[Stomper]

Sounds a lot along the theory of a "poll tax", as challenging the government for the right of redress of grievances and the government charging you (exorbitant amounts of) money for the "privilege", should you prevail.

 

[3MTA3]

Vote Brandsome 2024!

 

[Yarome]

Sounds a lot along the theory of a "poll tax", as challenging the government for the right of redress of grievances and the government charging you (exorbitant amounts of) money for the "privilege", should you prevail.

As opposed to a "shaft tax"?

Poll, shaft... same difference I guess. They both leave you feeling dirty and equally painful... I would imagine

 

[Stomper]

As opposed to a "shaft tax"?

Poll, shaft... same difference I guess. They both leave you feeling dirty and equally painful... I would imagine

That explains that feeling of unfulfillment, then rolling over and crying myself to sleep every night.

 

[GDragich]

So you sue to protect your rights, you win and then you must PAY both sides fees?
How ridiculous!
These politicians just use taxpayer $$ for their whims and NEVER suffer any personal consequences. Someone needs to sue Sideshow Bob personally for knowingly going against his oath to the WA constitution with his actions

RCW 43.01.020: Oath of office.

 

[User 1234]

I didn't watch the YouTube video above to see if it accurately described this issue. SB1327 does set up a one-way attorney's fee mechanism. It is chock full of unfair and nasty tricks too. For example, if a plaintiff (gun rights organization) files a suit in federal court and dismisses 1 out of 10 causes of action and the gun rights plaintiff wins all other 9, and the federal judge refuses to apply this California fee shifting law, the state can go file a new state court lawsuit for its attorney's fees against the gun rights organization, its lawyers personally, and any other plaintiffs for recovery of its attorneys fees. This is obviously designed to scare attorneys and plaintiffs away from these cases. Hopefully the federal courts strike this provision down as a poll tax, as was described above by others.

 

[Snip]

I guess the state could start by not passing unconstitutional laws, but so far it's working out for them.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Still oddly proud of being born in such a beautiful state.

Probably never moving back there.

 

[3MTA3]

Still oddly proud of being born in such a beautiful state.

Probably never moving back there.

If NorCal ever splits off to become Jefferson I'll be there on opening day. California itself is great it's the idiots that make it suck.

 

[American123]

With the hearing scheduled for Monday, a bit of a potential issue has been brought up in the plantiffs ability to continue pushing the legal challenge forward.

CA's new law (Sen Bill 1327) requires that any challenge to any CA 2A related law, all court and attorney's fees accrued by the state must be paid for by the prevailing party. So... if the Honorable Judge Benitez rules in favor of the 2A (which he will) then the pro-2A side will not only be responsibe for their own legal and court fees to challenge that law, we will also be responsible to pay CA for all the legal fees CA has accruded in defense of their infringment law.

IOW, they know best, and if you try to tell them then are wrong or what they are doing is unconstitutional, then you have to foot the whole bill for both sides if you win.

Only Kalifederation could come up with something so unconstitutional in the fight against unconstitutional infringments. Friggin mind blower. Just make it offical already. Secede from the U.S. and be done with it!

Hardly surprising - this regime resembles every other totalitarian regime in history. It just hasn't progressed as far as the others did, yet.

 

[RangerArms]

Wow, this court fees thing seems even more unconstitutional than the 2A issue in question! And even worse is the fact that the 9th Circus will back up Kalifornia on any appeal and if it gets to the SCOTUS, they will send it back down to the states level. WTF?

 

[3MTA3]

Wow, this court fees thing seems even more unconstitutional than the 2A issue in question! And even worse is the fact that the 9th Circus will back up Kalifornia on any appeal and if it gets to the SCOTUS, they will send it back down to the states level. WTF?

I don't see SCOTUS letting them play that game, especially where SCOTUS told the 9th to reconsider this specific case. My guess a whoopin' is a coming

 

[Yarome]

Wow, this court fees thing seems even more unconstitutional than the 2A issue in question! And even worse is the fact that the 9th Circus will back up Kalifornia on any appeal and if it gets to the SCOTUS, they will send it back down to the states level. WTF?

It will be interesting to see how it plays out, however, I "think" there is a pretty strong case to overturn it based on 2 very important SCOTUS decisions. Long ago they ruled that the right of access to the courts is an aspect of the First Amendment right to petition the Government for redress of grievances. The second being Bruen, which is not limited to the 2nd. All constitution related interpetations are subject to the same strict scrutiny... as far as I understand, but I could be wrong about that.

If that's true, It seems like it would be nearly impossible to argue that Kalifederations "poll tax" is consistent with history.

 

[Diamondback]

Kalif---hole needs to DIAF.

 

[RangerArms]

I don't see SCOTUS letting them play that game, especially where SCOTUS told the 9th to reconsider this specific case. My guess a whoopin' is a coming

You make a great point! There is hope after all!

 

[3MTA3]

You make a great point! There is hope after all!

Hopefully they will get to it before they pack the court, and yup they are talking about it again.