Another at least temporary win for Ca gun rights

[luckyman]

Info from attorney Steven Lieberman of the Artemis Defense Institute:

Judge Carney issued a preliminary injunction against certain aspects of SB2....specifically the "sensitive locations" component (the part that made most of California a “sensitive location” where you are not allowed to carry)


https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-12-20-Order-Granting-Plfs-MPI.pdf?utm_source=The+Inner+Circle&utm_campaign=3b6e188e4e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_08_26_02_20_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e97bade448-3b6e188e4e-163932285&mc_cid=3b6e188e4e&mc_eid=ee68899cf2

[Savage Hands]

Info from attorney Steven Lieberman of the Artemis Defense Institute:

Judge Carney issued a preliminary injunction against certain aspects of SB2....specifically the "sensitive locations" component (the part that made most of California a “sensitive location” where you are not allowed to carry)


https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-12-20-Order-Granting-Plfs-MPI.pdf?utm_source=The+Inner+Circle&utm_campaign=3b6e188e4e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_08_26_02_20_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e97bade448-3b6e188e4e-163932285&mc_cid=3b6e188e4e&mc_eid=ee68899cf2


We will take this win, but the battle continues...

[Savage Hands]

Human waste... https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-appeal-decision-blocking-enforcement-sb-2%E2%80%99s-prohibition


SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that his office will file an appeal of a district court decision issued in two companion cases, May v. Bonta and Carralero v. Bonta, enjoining certain provisions of Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) that prohibit the carry of concealed weapons in certain sensitive places including places where people gather, such as playgrounds and youth centers, places of worship, libraries, and parks, among other public places.
“If allowed to stand, this decision would endanger communities by allowing guns in places where families and children gather,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Guns in sensitive public places do not make our communities safer, but rather the opposite. More guns in more sensitive places makes the public less safe; the data supports it. I have directed my team to file an appeal to overturn this decision. We believe the court got this wrong, and that SB 2 adheres to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Bruen. We will seek the opinion of the appellate court to make it right.”
While the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution imposes some restrictions on states’ ability to regulate firearms, it has also recognized that the Second Amendment allows states to adopt a variety of gun regulations. For example, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that states may restrict the carrying of firearms in “sensitive places” and that states may prohibit individuals who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens from carrying firearms in public.
Despite this direction from the Supreme Court, the district court’s decision enjoins the state from enforcing several provisions of SB 2 identifying certain places where guns may not be carried. Those places include amusement parks, stadiums, parks, libraries, and hospitals. The decision does not address prohibitions on carrying guns in sensitive places that were not challenged in the lawsuits, including school zones, preschools, state or local public buildings, airports, or any legislative offices. Those restrictions remain in full effect. Other parts of SB 2 are also not covered by the district court's order, including provisions that:


Enhance the existing comprehensive licensing regime that helps ensure those permitted to carry firearms in public are responsible and law-abiding individuals who do not pose a danger to themselves or others.
Protect children and young adults from gun violence by setting a minimum age requirement of 21 years of age to obtain a CCW license.
Advance safety through stronger training requirements about the proper handling, loading, unloading, and storage of firearms

So far in 2023, the United States has suffered over 640 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Although the United States is an outlier when compared to gun violence in other wealthy nations, states with strong gun violence protections in place suffer fewer gun-related deaths. Despite having one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths in the nation, California is not immune to this uniquely American problem, and has a strong interest in maintaining laws that protect the safety of its citizens.
Research shows that strong firearm licensing laws are effective. States that have weakened these laws have experienced an up to 15% increase in violent crime rates (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jels.12219) a decade after implementation.

[luckyman]

Human waste... https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-appeal-decision-blocking-enforcement-sb-2%E2%80%99s-prohibition


SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that his office will file an appeal of a district court decision issued in two companion cases, May v. Bonta and Carralero v. Bonta, enjoining certain provisions of Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) that prohibit the carry of concealed weapons in certain sensitive places including places where people gather, such as playgrounds and youth centers, places of worship, libraries, and parks, among other public places.
“If allowed to stand, this decision would endanger communities by allowing guns in places where families and children gather,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Guns in sensitive public places do not make our communities safer, but rather the opposite. More guns in more sensitive places makes the public less safe; the data supports it. I have directed my team to file an appeal to overturn this decision. We believe the court got this wrong, and that SB 2 adheres to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Bruen. We will seek the opinion of the appellate court to make it right.”
While the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution imposes some restrictions on states’ ability to regulate firearms, it has also recognized that the Second Amendment allows states to adopt a variety of gun regulations. For example, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that states may restrict the carrying of firearms in “sensitive places” and that states may prohibit individuals who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens from carrying firearms in public.
Despite this direction from the Supreme Court, the district court’s decision enjoins the state from enforcing several provisions of SB 2 identifying certain places where guns may not be carried. Those places include amusement parks, stadiums, parks, libraries, and hospitals. The decision does not address prohibitions on carrying guns in sensitive places that were not challenged in the lawsuits, including school zones, preschools, state or local public buildings, airports, or any legislative offices. Those restrictions remain in full effect. Other parts of SB 2 are also not covered by the district court's order, including provisions that:


Enhance the existing comprehensive licensing regime that helps ensure those permitted to carry firearms in public are responsible and law-abiding individuals who do not pose a danger to themselves or others.
Protect children and young adults from gun violence by setting a minimum age requirement of 21 years of age to obtain a CCW license.
Advance safety through stronger training requirements about the proper handling, loading, unloading, and storage of firearms

So far in 2023, the United States has suffered over 640 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Although the United States is an outlier when compared to gun violence in other wealthy nations, states with strong gun violence protections in place suffer fewer gun-related deaths. Despite having one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths in the nation, California is not immune to this uniquely American problem, and has a strong interest in maintaining laws that protect the safety of its citizens.
Research shows that strong firearm licensing laws are effective. States that have weakened these laws have experienced an up to 15% increase in violent crime rates (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jels.12219) a decade after implementation.

Yeah we all knew that was coming. I don’t know how Bonta says some of that with a straight face. SMH

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Good news but it ain't over till Clarence gets off the yacht (yeah, I know - yelling at the clouds). The order will be stayed for years.

[paherne]

Good news but it ain't over till Clarence gets off the yacht (yeah, I know - yelling at the clouds). The order will be stayed for years.

I think you are completely wrong, in this case. The order is masterful, like something Judge Benitez would write. Cormac Carney is an honorable jurist and great American.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No offense, that is not the point. Such orders are very well written in many states but then stayed as an appeal goes to a circuit. Usually, the Circuit stays the order, giving at least a year's delay. I've read that CA is already in court to appeal this one. In NYS, we had some great lower court judgements that ended up in the 2nd Circuit. After a long delay (stretched it out as long as they could), surprisingly, they found against the opt in business ban, keeping some sensitive locales, and finding against a few of the permit requirements. However, that wasn't the real case, just the TRO and the process starts again.

My point is that these cases take years of up and down and a lower court decision, however well written, isn't conclusive. Only Scotus is conclusive (for the moment depending on the justices at the time) and they are not motivated to protect our rights with any speed. All kinds of procedural reasons for that which are on my cloud to yell at.

[Savage Hands]

No offense, that is not the point. Such orders are very well written in many states but then stayed as an appeal goes to a circuit. Usually, the Circuit stays the order, giving at least a year's delay. I've read that CA is already in court to appeal this one. In NYS, we had some great lower court judgements that ended up in the 2nd Circuit. After a long delay (stretched it out as long as they could), surprisingly, they found against the opt in business ban, keeping some sensitive locales, and finding against a few of the permit requirements. However, that wasn't the real case, just the TRO and the process starts again.

My point is that these cases take years of up and down and a lower court decision, however well written, isn't conclusive. Only Scotus is conclusive (for the moment depending on the justices at the time) and they are not motivated to protect our rights with any speed. All kinds of procedural reasons for that which are on my cloud to yell at.



I'd rather this order to stay as is with the PI than going into effect basically eliminating legal CCW in this state.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Of course but it is part of the antigun state strategy to pass NYS style locale bans to eliminate useful carry. The ban usually sticks for awhile despite a good lower court decision due to the appeals. My point, yet again, is that states will try local bans - locales, AWBs, permit rules, etc. to destroy carry and tie up gun rights in the courts as Scotus is not hot to deal with such.

[luckyman]

I think you are completely wrong, in this case. The order is masterful, like something Judge Benitez would write. Cormac Carney is an honorable jurist and great American.

The intro is something to read! I will send this to any of my international relatives who again question why ‘Murica needs guns.

[paherne]

No offense, that is not the point. Such orders are very well written in many states but then stayed as an appeal goes to a circuit. Usually, the Circuit stays the order, giving at least a year's delay. I've read that CA is already in court to appeal this one. In NYS, we had some great lower court judgements that ended up in the 2nd Circuit. After a long delay (stretched it out as long as they could), surprisingly, they found against the opt in business ban, keeping some sensitive locales, and finding against a few of the permit requirements. However, that wasn't the real case, just the TRO and the process starts again.

My point is that these cases take years of up and down and a lower court decision, however well written, isn't conclusive. Only Scotus is conclusive (for the moment depending on the justices at the time) and they are not motivated to protect our rights with any speed. All kinds of procedural reasons for that which are on my cloud to yell at.

I understand your frustration, but this is a win. I know CA has appealed the stay. I also know that the 9th Circuit has been caught playing reindeer games with other gun rights/2A cases, specifically by judges on the 9th circuit calling out their colleagues in a very public and messy way. The 9th is not used to having their dirty laundry aired, both by jurists AND a number of YouTube Channels by legal scholars pointing out their perfidy. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and the 9th is used to doing what they want without much blowback. That ship has sailed and SCOTUS kicking back a number of cases, plus Judge Carney, not just Judge Benitez, putting forth these masterful rulings/orders along with the recent rulings about Hawaii's knife laws and 2A issues are a rising tide that the die-hard anti-gun jurists will have a much harder time resisting.

We are winning. Even though the yoke of injustice still hangs heavy upon normal Californians, the end is in sight.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would be happy if Scotus would take emergency appeals to let the original positive orders stay in place rather than allowing the Circuits to stay the lower court decisions. I see it as:

1. Lower Court Good - gives the rights back
2. Circuit stays that lower court decision, until it decides
3. Emergency appeal of the Circuit to Scotus
4. Scotus doesn't take or grant the emergency appeal, let's the Circuit stall, stall.
5. Why? Scotus could let the Circuit take all the time it wants to decide the case BUT allow the previously existing rights to continue.

Why not restore the right and let the Circuit blather about why it should be restricted, instead of allowing the rights to be infringed? But what to I know, I know as much about the intricacy of law as I know about yachting.

I hope folks are correct that the build up of lower court decisions lead to a greater overall one.

[luckyman]

Welp, a three judge panel at the 9th Circuit made up of:

Judge Rawlinson (nominated by Bill Clinton)
Judge Baybee (nominated by George Bush)
Judge Hurwitz (nominated by Barack Obama)

Has granted the State their motion to stay Judge Carney’s preliminary injunction.

The incredibly brief missive that these three jurists allowed to be published and promulgated offers absolutely no guidance on their reasoning. Just a general deference to the State. They do mention tangentially that this should have no effect on the motions deadlines or the decision of the panel that will be hearing the interlocutory appeal to the preliminary injunction.

Copied verbatim from an email from Steven Lieberman of Artemis Defense Institute, send them some love if you get a chance.

https://artemishq.com/

[0ddl0t]

sadly all too common in the 9th

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Another WOO WOO - WE WIN day in the Circuits.

To Hock mir nisht kein tshainik or yell at my cloud. If Scotus had:

1. Not remanded but decided, hopefully pro
2. Supported the various TROs from NYS and elsewhere on carry and AWBs

we wouldn't be seeing these as the line in the sand would have been drawn. Said this a hundred times. Procedural nonsense, trying to get the Circuits to do their jobs or spank them - all BS - when it comes to protecting a basic civil right. The causality behind the slow walk or sail may indicate the votes don't exist for clear action.

[luckyman]

The stay got lifted; the injunction is back in effect!!

[Savage Hands]

The stay got lifted; the injunction is back in effect!!


I will take it!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Maybe there is hope, one hopes!

[fly out]

Maybe there is hope, one hopes!

Glenn, you better change your password...obviously, someone hacked your account!


:D

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Haha!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PtdpI-D6mM

[Ed L]

Glenn, that's a bit out of date, don't you think?:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-A68VXiYdg

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ouch. I preferred James Spader in Secretary. Thread drift.