Zeleny v. Bonta: a Small Win for Gun Rights

[zeleny]

Zeleny v. Bonta, né Zeleny v. Brown, in District Court, N.D. California (3:17-cv-07357): Judge rules that “Menlo Park’s [special event permitting] process and film permitting process are facially unconstitutional prior restraints” in my lawsuit seeking to carry firearms during a protest.

Long story short, unloaded open and concealed carry is about to become legal again in California, upon receipt of a “shall issue” Entertainment Firearms Permit, preferably accompanied by “shall issue” film or entertainment event permits.

Elsewhere in his ruling, Judge Seeborg notes that the First Amendment protects only conduct that is intended to convey a particularized message, implicitly disregarding the particularized message of open carry formulated by the Black Panthers in 1967: “We won’t go down without a fight.” Moreover, in regard of plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim, he insinuates, but fails to spell out, the rational basis for discriminating against the Black Panthers, in favor of makers of a movie about them.

[0ddl0t]

Outstanding!

[paherne]

Congratulations. Interesting decision with lots of take aways for the mandarins that work for most city governments.

[runcible]

Congratulations. Interesting decision with lots of take aways for the mandarins that work for most city governments.

Weird; do you think those of other races will also have take-aways from it?

[runcible]

I don't know how this provides for improving the position of non-belligerents.

"Zeleny’s motion for summary judgment against the State is denied in its entirety, and the State’s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety. Zeleny’s motion for summary judgment against Menlo Park and Dave Bertini is granted as to its request for judgment that Menlo Park’s SEP permitting process and film permitting process are facially unconstitutional prior restraints, and denied in all other respects. The cross-motion for summary judgment brought by Menlo Park and Dave Bertini is granted as to its request for judgment that Zeleny may not seek injunctive relief against Bertini under Ex Parte Young, and denied in all other respects."

I feel bad for those that had to put up with the theatrics along the way.

[paherne]

Weird; do you think those of other races will also have take-aways from it?

Am I missing the sarcasm?

[zeleny]

I don't know how this provides for improving the position of non-belligerents.

California law exempts authorized participants in film or video productions and entertainment events from its bans on open and concealed carry of firearms. Supreme Court precedents deny the state the authority to restrict speech based on its material trappings and degree of professionalism. Strap on your smartphone set to record video, and you are good to go.

[Clusterfrack]

@zeleny, @jetfire, knock it off. Pistol Forum doesn’t need to keep witnessing your spats.

I’m deleting the post with the homophobic slur. Actually, I’m just going to delete a bunch of posts and see what happens.

Locked threads and timeouts are the next steps.

[cheby]

I miss Doodie Project

[BehindBlueI's]

upon receipt of a “shall issue” Entertainment Firearms Permit

So you can pay about $100 to get that one year permit (then cheaper to renew annually), then if required get a filming permit for the location, and then carry an empty weapon while you film it when/where your permit is for?

Congrats, I guess. CA must suck indeed if that's a win.