Thanks to warlord for posting this in GD.  I thought it also needed to be posted here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-gun-laws-face-legal-assault/ar-AAZpopH?li=BBnbfcL



California gun laws face legal assault
Opinion by Dan Walters

In summary

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down a New York gun control law could also erase much of California’s toughest-in-the-nation array of gun laws.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta and other California politicians are incensed that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s law imposing tough limits on concealed weapons permits.

They know that by invalidating New York’s requirement that permit applicants demonstrate good cause, the court also made California’s similar requirement unconstitutional.

Newsom branded it a “reckless decision” and pledged that California “will continue to lead in the fight to keep our people safe. Next week, I will have 16 new gun safety bills on my desk, including a bill that will allow individuals to sue gun makers and distributors for violating certain gun laws. I look forward to signing all of those bills.”

Bonta advised law enforcement officials that they could no longer demand that applicants have an acceptable cause. However, he also – at great length – told them that applicants still could be required to demonstrate good moral character, which may open a new legal front in the perpetual gun control conflict.

The pro-gun rights Firearms Policy Coalition immediately warned Bonta that wholesale use of good moral character to deny permits violates the Supreme Court’s newly adopted standard and would lead to “far more Second Amendment claims than they have ever faced.”

A few days after issuing its landmark New York decision, the Supreme Court dropped another bombshell, telling appellate courts that its new interpretation of the Constitution’s “right to bear arms” clause will invalidate other lower-court rulings upholding state gun control laws. They include Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” that’s similar to California’s law and a California law that bans firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

The twin actions could wipe out major elements of California’s strictest-in-the-nation regime of gun laws, because of a key legal point in the Supreme Court’s New York decision known as the “two-step approach.”

In upholding gun control laws, appellate courts often concede that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms (step one) but then conclude that the laws are justified by the need to protect people from harm (step two).

“Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach…” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. “Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many.”

Thus it imposes a much higher constitutional standard for gun control laws. It could, for instance, invalidate the “good moral character” factor that Bonta is now touting because it’s not an objective factor such as having a criminal record or being the subject of a restraining order.

All in all, the Supreme Court leaves California’s vast array of gun control laws in flux and despite Newsom’s pledge to find ways to pursue new regulations, it’s likely that there’s room for maneuver only on the margins.

The centerpiece of the 16 new gun control laws Newsom plans to sign would allow private citizens to sue makers of illegal guns, such as the unregistered “ghost guns” that are assembled from parts and peddled on the black market.

Good luck on that. The deep-pocketed major arms manufacturers don’t sell illegal guns and those who assemble them in their garages won’t attract the attention of personal injury lawyers because they offer scant monetary returns.

Another bill would ban gun shows on state-owned property but that’s just political symbolism. Gun show promoters can easily find other venues, so the main effect of the legislation will be to deprive financially strapped local fairgrounds of rental income.

It’s a new day for gun control in California “whether you like it or not,” to borrow a phrase that Newsom once uttered in another context

When the smoke has cleared and these Monster Man grips, bullet buttons, etc. are no longer needed, I'd love to see some video of people shoveling a great big pile of them into a wood chipper or something like that. It would make an awesome avatar gif. Can't wait until you guys can celebrate! Know that we are all pulling for you guys!

Miller v Bonita (AWB) was remanded to the district court (Benitez) by the 9th.

I got a very interesting email from CRPA the other day.  I found it very uplifting.

It listed all the law suits being filed which will rescind all the onerous, anti-2A, anti-gun legislation here in the State of California - "assault weapon" bans, magazine bans, handgun roster, ammo purchase restrictions, age restrictions, youth shooting restrictions,...  They are pushing back on all of them.

They are in for a long haul and will need financial support but I found the email to be the best gun news in a long time.

Do you remember "Freedom Week"?  Yeah, the email topics were right up there with that.

Freedom week and freedom day.

I learned about freedom week the Friday afternoon when the decision came down. And made it in on freedom day with a single purchase

Kalifornia gun laws are a sinking ship and $10 says Wa's att gen turd ferguson is begging Ca and the 9th to drag this out. Wa just passed a mag ban in July. Would be a YUGE slap to their faces for this to get smacked down in Ca this year.


This guy does a pretty good job keeping up to date info available.

I am so happy for you guys. God willing, every week is about to be Freedom Week there! I have been wanting to come out to the LA area to hear a live sermon from John MacArthur at Grace Community Church. It blows my mind to think I might be able to do that with a FL CCW and standard magazines in the near future. I want desperately to see video after video on YouTube of Californians shoveling Monster Man Grips, bullet buttons, low cap mags, etc. into wood chippers in celebration! It's going to be awesome! We are pulling for you guys! It seems that at the rate things are going you guys may actually beat New York to being free men again.

In my opinion, the delaying tactic is not for legal purposes, it is for political purposes.  Drag your feet long enough and the composition of the US Supreme Court can change in your favor.  The leftist judges have a proven record of voting based upon current politics rather than established law, history, text.

What I'd like to see is a published timeline for these legal events.  There was a date handed down for submitting the briefs, what about the rest of the process?


Remember this one from CRPA,  "Society is safer when criminals don't know who is armed."

Benitez is doing something on the AWB this morning at 9:30am. He has 1 hour dedicated to it.

Also CA came out with a new law where you have to pay their legal costs if you challenge gun laws and lose.

I do not enjoy this guy's videos but he has the scoop, so many thanks to him.

So when is the deadline for all the arguments to be submitted to St. Benitez?  I heard something in the vid about 45 days plus 15 days to respond.

I think that's correct, and the clock started on 8/29. That should be Oct 13 they are submitted, if my math is right.

This could be a big week for California gun owners.  The count down clock starts ticking Thursday night.




I'm willing to bet the State asks for a 30 to 90 day delay for their submittal.

I think that's a very safe bet. A right delayed is a right denied. I'm not in CA but it seems to me the state gov't there will go through great efforts just to be a PITA even when they know they are fighting a losing battle, just because they can. They want squeeze every bit of oppression and control out of every little thing they can even beyond when they have the ability to legally do so. I hope they get clobbered, chopped down to size and put in their place.

Sure hope so!!!

So far they've been attempting every delay in the book. They know they're fighting a losing battle.

I have a feeling though judge benitez wont allow any shenanigans. He's been fast tracking this since the 9th kicked it back down to him (another delay tactic, they didnt want to be the ones to give in to SCOTUS)

I assumed CA could appeal any decision by the district court, but a San Diego gun owners member was telling me no more appeals and what Benitez decides stands. If so seems odd the 9th didn't keep this at their level.

Has there been any movement on this? My body (and credit card ) is ready lol

Subscribe to this guys channel. He stays on top of whats going on in kali

It will be joy and pain, but 'Hurts so good' type of pain. I hate it but I think if I were in that situation I'd max at least one card out while the getting is good I thought the nonsense out there would never end, but here we are. I am so very happy for you guys. Welcome to America, the land of the FREE and the brave ;) I said I'd never set foot in California or spend a penny there in person but it looks like you guys are headed for enough change for me to eat those words.

He keeps on top of getting new videos out.  It gets hard to find real news in there.

That guy turns 30 seconds worth of information into 30 minutes of noise.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the efforts he makes, he just needs to learn to be more concise.

An update by ArmedScholar

(Surely, I screwed up that link)

That was from 2021. I think you meant this one

Yes, thank you for that.

What cracks me up, is the State wanting all sorts of time to research the historical records.  

What I find humorous in that is, THEY SHOULD DO THAT BEFORE THEY PASS THE LEGISLATION.   They could have a team of legal aids and assistants do that before they pass the legislation.  

The Governor should do that research BEFORE he signs a Bill which he is being told is unconstitutional.

This is their DUTY.  

They not only abrogate their duty, they pass unconstitutional legislation and use the State's power of the executive branch to enforce them.

It is rather simple, though (although they want to pretend otherwise): the militia made up of citizens was armed with the exact same weapons the military used. And for most of the time period from 1607 up until the Bill of Rights was written, the only defense force was the militia.

In the English colonial period the first time there were British troops in America in any real capacity was in the French and Indian War that started in the 1750s. So for near 150 years the colonists were on their own (excepting whatever Royal Navy ships were about).

Citizens had the exact same types of weapons as the military did until around the 1850s when civilian tech began advance beyond what the military used. The Henry and Winchester rifles were in effect the "assault rifle" of the day. The only reason the Union Army issued repeaters is because Mr Spencer took his rifle/carbine direct to Lincoln, who forced it on the army, much as JFK did with the AR15 ~100 years later.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65377309/miller-v-bonta/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-24

I believe that's Miller v. Bonta 2.

The original Miller case plus Duncan and Rhode are all going to be heard on the same day, December 12th, which likely means something is up.  Hopefully a summary judgment and permanent injunction on all of them.

Likely from Benitez, but CA will appeal and the 9th will probably side with the state.

Likely the 9th will want to, but they still have to justify it as well and there old standard was just stopped by SCOTUS. So Benitez gives us a preliminary injunction, 9th is on the hook to come up with a reason for reversal with the new standard just for the PI that if against us would go straight to SCOTUS.

Leftist judges will rule however to achieve their goal, without embarrassment. They will no doubt delay as much as they can.

I suspect they leverage off of Bonta's arguments, I doubt they have anything better.

Historically the militia was armed with the same weapons the military used. The British army didn't even serve in America until the French and Indian was that started in 1754. Prior to that from 1607 to 1754 the only defense was the militia (except whatever Royal Navy ship that might be about). In the french and Indian War the redcoats were mostly about taking Canada, not defense, that still was with the local militias.

Militias and military essentially used the same weapons until ~1850, when civilians started adopting new breach loaders and then repeaters. It wasn't until ~1900 that you start to see the military adopt weapons civilians didn't have access to, and legally civilians were not restricted from owning anything until NFA in 1934 (and then it wasn't a ban but a tax).

Note that there were militias in America in the late 1800s that were active in the Indian wars and defense against criminals, etc. They didn't look or fight like the militias of 1775, but they still existed. Militias adopted throughout our history, and were usually neglected when there was no immediate need. But they continued on when they were needed. The militia activities wasn't just about the firearm, but all accessories as well, including ammo, means of carrying ammo, horses and tack, etc. In 1775 it was musket, ramrod, powder horn with powder, and pouch with balls and patches, small knife, and maybe a bayonet or maybe a tomahawk or small axe. Sometimes pistols or swords.

Any updates?

Two more weeks, it seems.

There was a hearing today on Miller 2.  Sounds like despite pleading from CA, Benitez plans to have a trial on the 16th.  Benitez I heard was talking about he could subpeona Newsom and ask him about things he said about Benitez, among other things.  Sounds like he was in good spirits and ready for the fight.  It also sounds like he plans to decide the matter before the law is set to take effect in 2023 and that he also took no action respecting the motion for a preliminary injunction.  I also heard that nothing big is likely from the three hearings on the 12th.

What law in 2023? I'm not aware of anything knew related to Miller.

CA passed a law that if you sue the state over your 2A rights being infringed, you must pay all the states court fees unless you win every aspect of the case. So sue the state for 10 things, win 9, whelp you didn't get all 10, pay up. It is a desperate attempt to chill lawsuits post bruen and Miller sued over it, so that is Miller 2.

OK, I heard of that. Isn't it also being challenged?

Yes, that's what the hearing on the 28th was about.  It'll go to trial on the 16th.

Yes, it is Miller II.

Also, Dec 5th is the opening of the new Assembly session.  The replacement to SB918 that bans CCW for most of the state looks like it will be reintroduced as promised.

Is the AWB being decided tomorrow?

Is Benitez a federal judge or state?

Federal. Southern CA district.

Any news yet?

70 more days.

30 days for the state to list 1888 or earlier laws and legal challenges to them, 1791 and earlier count more.

30 days for comments.

10 days to respond.

Prior to the magazine ban, standard capacity magazines were in common use almost every single time someone picked up an AR or other style semiauto rifle.  Those who legally own them, still use them.

It was the magazine ban that brought restricted capacity magazine into use.

The logic in the argument is wrong-headed, Orwellian, double-speak.  The norm is NOT the exception.  It is normal, common. prevalent.

General Discussion has a thread on the Duncan v Bonta case.  

Link to GD thread

That’s funny.  Just needs a grading matrix.  Anything below an A+ in this assignment will be considered a fail.

Here's another GD thread on the case.

Link to GD thread

At risk of redundancy, IMO, "use" does not require shots being fired.  Use means the magazine was loaded and inserted into the rifle.  It was selected for "use" over any other magazine.