B.L.U.F.What do all of those citations mean, and why is it important?

(1900 words)

There are two types of items that can possibly be cited in a legal “brief”. Those are the opinion or ruling of the court, and things submitted to the docket of a case.

With “real” legal briefs and opinions, they never(?) cite to docketed material in other cases. They might cite to items on this case’s docket. These are sometimes difficult to figure out, but it is possible.

Most of the problems stem from abbreviations. As an example, when a case is appealed, the parties might be asked to submit a “joint appendix”. This is often a multi-volume submission of hundreds of pages with all referenced works listed. In the latest filing by the state in Duncan v. Bonta the state cites some 28 different documents.

This is similar to the bibliography that some of my posts include.

Once the Joint Appendix is filed, the parties refer to those citations by “JA #”, where “#” is the number of that entry in the joint appendix. This makes it somewhat easier for the people reading to recognize the citations they have already processed. All it takes is a checkmark next to that citation to tell the reader they have already read and analyzed that citation.

For us, common people, it means we have to find the joint appendix and access it to look up a citation. I’m almost to the point where I want to write software that takes a PDF of these references and turns it into a spreadsheet.

Names

Read More

B.L.U.F.Short discussion of the level of honesty from the state.

I’m under the weather, so nothing too long, I hope. (I can hope, it just doesn’t happen.)

(2200 words)

Duncan v. Bonta is the case that started in 2017 challenging California’s magazine ban. Judge Benitez found magazine bans to be unconstitutional. He enjoined the state from enforcing the magazine ban. Thousands of magazines flowed into the state.

The state begged for a stay while the case was on appeal. Judge Benitez granted that stay in part. Those people who possessed forbidden magazines were protected as well as those that received magazines during the injunction, as well as the people who ordered during Freedom Week but had not yet received their magazines.

Since there was no emergency motion for a stay, the case was assigned to a three judge panel. The three judge panel agreed with Judge Benitez. The opinion of the three judge panel was written by Circuit Judge Lee.

The state asked for an en banc hearing. As expected, it was granted. The en banc panel then found in a 7 to 4 opinion that a magazine ban was constitutional and vacated the three judge panel’s opinion. Judge Vandyke wrote a fantastic dissent on the case, slamming the majority.

The plaintiffs (good guys) appealed to the Supreme Court. The request for certiorari was not granted, nor was it denied. The case was held pending the outcome of Bruen. After Bruen was decided, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the en banc panel’s opinion, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit.
Read More

On September 26, 2023, Governor Newsom signed a bunch of infringing laws into effect.

The Bad News

The bills were:

SB 2

Restricting who gets CCWs. The minimum age to get a CCW of 21. More training and making most of California a “sensitive place”.

SB 452

Require microstamping on all guns sold or transferred by 2028.

AB 28

11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition

AB 455

Prohibit people in “mental health diversion programs” from possessing firearms

AB 725

Requires reporting when chunks of aluminum or plastic or lost or stolen as if they were firearms.

AB 732

Makes it easier for the state to remove firearms from people

• AB 28 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) – Firearms and ammunition: excise tax.
• AB 92 by Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael) – Body armor: prohibition.
• AB 97 by Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez (D-Pomona) – Firearms: unserialized firearms.
• AB 301 by Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) – Gun violence restraining orders: body armor.
• AB 355 by Assemblymember Juan Alanis (R-Modesto) – Firearms: assault weapons: exception for peace officer training.
• AB 455 by Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) – Firearms: prohibited persons.
• AB 574 by Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (D-Los Angeles) – Firearms: dealer records of sale.
• AB 724 by Assemblymember Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) – Firearms: safety certificate instructional materials.
• AB 725 by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) – Firearms: reporting of lost and stolen firearms.
• AB 732 by Assemblymember Mike Fong (D-Alhambra) – Crimes: relinquishment of firearms.
• AB 762 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) – California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program.
• AB 818 by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine) – Protective orders.
• AB 1089 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) – Firearms.
• AB 1406 by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) – Firearms: waiting periods.
• AB 1420 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) – Firearms.
• AB 1483 by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia (D-Anaheim) – Firearms: purchases.
• AB 1587 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) – Financial transactions: firearms merchants: merchant category code.
• AB 1598 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) – Gun violence: firearm safety education.
• SB 2 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank) – Firearms.
• SB 241 by Senator Dave Min (D-Irvine) – Firearms: dealer requirements.
• SB 368 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank) – Firearms: requirements for licensed dealers.
• SB 417 by Senator Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) – Firearms: licensed dealers.
• SB 452 by Senator Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) – Firearms.

The Good News

The Great News

This little form says that Judge Carney grabbed this case. He likely grabbed any others filed in C.D.Cal.

Why is great news?

This is the same judge who recently found for the plaintiffs (good guys) in Lance Boland v. Robert Bonta, 8:22-cv-01421, (C.D. Cal.). He followed Bruen and got it mostly right. This means that he can move rapidly and will likely issue a TRO and preliminary injunction shortly.

This is a case worth watching. Not to see what happens, but to see how rapidly it happens.

The Original

With a swing:

With a more modern dance sequence

And, in some ways, the most impressive. A senior high school marching band:

They do this song while marching parade routes. This just happens to be well mic’ed and on a stage.

CNN: Feinstein’s body, accompanied by Pelosi, arrives in California on plane from president’s military fleet

One of the things that makes the United States different, and better, than most other countries is that all officials and members of the military take an oath to the Constitution of the United States.

They do not take a loyalty oath to any one person. They do not pledge their allegiance to the president, they swear an oath to the Constitution.

There is no “President’s military fleet”. That is an affront to me and every American. Even the 747 that the president travels in is not “the president’s plane”. It belongs to The People.

In this one headline, you see how twisted the left is.

(Words 1200)

Just what the title says, a number of cases with either short histories or simply where the are in the process.

National Rifle Association v. Commissioner, Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, 21-12314, (11th Cir.)

Suit filed in March 2018, Eleventh Circuit court 2 judge panel hears oral arguments heard March 24, 2022. On March 9, 2023, the panel decides that 18,19, and 20-year-olds are not Part of the People. The opinion was vacated the same day. On July 14, 2023, the Circuit Court decided to hear the case en banc

Currently waiting for scheduling orders.

United States v. Rahimi, 21-11001, (5th Cir.)

Cert granted by the Supreme Court. Oral arguments to be heard in the term starting October 2023.

United States v. Connelly, 23-50312, (5th Cir.)

A criminal case was opened in Jan. 2022. The Connelly’s were charged with a violation of §922(g)(3). The trial judge (criminal trial) found for Connelly. The state appealed to the fifth circuit on May 4, 2023. Briefings not yet submitted. Oral arguments not yet scheduled.

Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. State of Rhode Island, 23-1072, (1st Cir.)

Case opened June 23, 2022. Magazine ban law. The District court found that magazines are not arms on December 14, 2022. Appealed on January 13, 2023. Oral arguments were heard on September 11, 2023.

Waiting for the three judge panel’s opinion.
Read More

B.L.U.F.
The Ninth Circuit has a history of ruling against The People in Second Amendment cases. I heard that they are 0 for 50. Not verified.

This is the story of just one 2A case. It is very long. About 4 hours of writing and research. Even if you don’t want to read my description of the history of this case, please take the time to read the dissents. (link updated to work.)

(3900 words)

In May 2017, a hero steps forth to do battle with the great leviathan which is the California anti-gun state.

Virginia Duncan files a lawsuit challenging California’s magazine ban. Since 2008, when the Heller Court stated that the Second Amendment protected an individual, the rogue courts had been rubber-stamping every gun control regulation the states could dream up.

She was just another Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, hoping to accomplish something. There was little or no chance of winning. Even the most inferior courts, the district courts, would be against her.

A judge was pulled at random and assigned to her case. Judge Roger T. Benitez was his name. Luckily for Virginia, he was a rogue judge.

A rogue judge or court is a court that mouths the words of their superiors, yet finds ways to disobey even the clearest of instructions.

Judge Benitez was just such a man. In the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, they state it bluntly, California’s magazine ban is unconstitutional.

It is important to note that they are using the most powerful case law available to them, Heller. In particular, they make the claim that “in common use” means that it can’t be banned. If the item is an arm that is in common use today, then it is protected under the Second Amendment.
Read More