CA Update: AB962 = NO MORE !!! 1/18/11 - Page 2

seed · October 22, 2011, 10:49 PM

So what's the short and fast? Can someone please summarize what is going on now?

Aguila Blanca · October 22, 2011, 11:18 PM

State banned mail order ammo sales.

CalGuns and NRA sued.

State Lost.

State is appealing.

Dan F · October 23, 2011, 03:29 PM

No, Aguila, I have to differ...

That state is really not very appealing.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

seed · October 23, 2011, 07:13 PM

So does anyone know how likely they are to win their appeal?

**Al Norris** · October 23, 2011, 08:43 PM

I don't think it very likely, but I'm biased.

Without reading the States opening brief, it's really kinda hard to actually say. We will know more, next week when the State files.

Standing Wolf · October 23, 2011, 08:54 PM

Quote:

No, Aguila, I have to differ...
That state is really not very appealing.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Speaking strictly as someone who spent ten years there and returned to the United States: the state of California is beautiful; its elected officials and bureaucrats are altogether another matter.

HoraceHogsnort · October 29, 2011, 09:36 PM

madmag wrote: "One of my sons just moved to CA from NJ....kinda like going from the skillet to the skillet."

Its actually more like going from the latrine trench to the outhouse pit!!

**Al Norris** · October 29, 2011, 10:15 PM

From the Docket:

Quote:

10/26/2011 Stipulation filed to: extend the filing of the AAO from 10/27/11 to 12/12/11. 3rd stipulation sent to Acting PJ for approval.
10/28/2011 Stipulation of extension of time filed to: AAO w/n 45 days; 3rd stipulation approved by PJ.

So the opening brief is now due on or before Dec. 12, 2011.

**Al Norris** · August 28, 2012, 11:15 PM

I haven't been following the appeals to this case very much, as things were moving at a truly glacial pace (more the norm than the case we have been following)... Until I received an email notice by Michel & Associates (on an unrelated concern). Nestled in that email blast, was a reference to this case.

Low and behold, the CRPA attorneys have made public their response. While we don't don't have the opening brief by the CA DOJ, we now have the appellee's response.

If you have followed the CA handgun Ammo virtual ban case, this brief will delight you in its clarity.

**Al Norris** · January 30, 2013, 04:20 PM

Waking up this "dead" thread with the latest (although somewhat dated) info from the CA appeals court.

The appellants filed their reply brief on Sept. 26, 2012: Appellants’ Reply Brief

Here, the appellants/defendants argue that a facial challenge to the law, that the law must be vague in all of its applications for a challenge to succeed.

Then on Oct. 9, 2012, a pair of amici curiae filed briefs in support of the respondent (plaintiff). They are:

FFLGuard LLC & Gun Owners of California. This brief is written by Stephan Halbrook.
Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Inc. This brief is written by Richard Gardiner.

These two amici briefs rebut the appellants reply, above.

The appellants were given 30 days to respond to the amici briefs and on Nov. 13, 2012, they filed their response: Appellants Answer to Amicus Briefs of FFL Guard, LLC and Gun Owners of California and Law Enforcement Alliance of America. A summary of the rebuttal is in the second paragraph of page 5 of the pdf:

Quote:

The amicus briefs at issue have been submitted by avowed gun control opponents. The briefs fail to properly analyze the relevant legal standards, cite a depublished case, and improperly attempt to expand the scope of the appeal. The briefs lack legitimate persuasive power, fail to illuminate any issue of consequence in the action, and need not be considered by the Court.

This case is now fully briefed and we await further court action.

**Al Norris** · May 19, 2013, 01:49 PM

In other news, not entirely related to this case, California Lawyer, Chuck Michel, was Honored with NRA Defender of Justice Award. This award was given at the convention in Houston.

In other threads, I have disparaged the NRA-ILA for some of its lawsuits. I think I've made it clear that my remarks were meant for specific cases. If not, let me make that very clear with this post: Any disparaging remarks about the litigation efforts of the NRA-ILA are meant to be viewed in the context of the specific litigation in the thread that the remarks are posted. No more, no less.

The law firm headed by Chuck Michel is perhaps the foremost 2A litigator in CA. It is the "goto" firm when the NRA and/or the CRPA need expert litigators. They are, perhaps the best of the best, when it comes to defending the 2A against the anti-gun legislators in CA.

In this, I applaud the NRA-ILA in delivering this award to Chuck Michel. It is well deserved. My respect and thanks go to Chuck, himself, and to his associates. Sean? Clint? that means you guys too!

62coltnavy · May 19, 2013, 11:51 PM

Checked the docket and here is the status. On May 9. 2013, the court announced that it was ready to decide the case without the benefit of oral argument, unless requested by a party. On May 16, the State requested oral argument. Argument will likely be scheduled in the next 45-90 days, and the court will then have 90 days to issue its decision. So we can expect a decision by early fall, perhaps sooner.

The up side of this case is that the odds favor affirmance of the trial court decision. The downside is that last year the Legislature passed a bill that sought to correct the deficiencies of this law. Governor Brown in vetoing the new bill suggested that any new law should await the resolution of the lawsuit--which is pretty smart thinking because if there is a reversal and Brown had signed the new law, there would be competing statutes on the books. Not dissuaded by this obvious logic, the vetoed bill (or some modification thereof) is up for consideration in the Legislature again this term. The big difference now is that there is a veto killing supermajority of gun banning democrats in both houses.

May 19, 2013, 01:49 PM	#36
Al Norris Staff Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 8,756	In other news, not entirely related to this case, California Lawyer, Chuck Michel, was Honored with NRA Defender of Justice Award. This award was given at the convention in Houston. In other threads, I have disparaged the NRA-ILA for some of its lawsuits. I think I've made it clear that my remarks were meant for specific cases. If not, let me make that very clear with this post: Any disparaging remarks about the litigation efforts of the NRA-ILA are meant to be viewed in the context of the specific litigation in the thread that the remarks are posted. No more, no less. The law firm headed by Chuck Michel is perhaps the foremost 2A litigator in CA. It is the "goto" firm when the NRA and/or the CRPA need expert litigators. They are, perhaps the best of the best, when it comes to defending the 2A against the anti-gun legislators in CA. In this, I applaud the NRA-ILA in delivering this award to Chuck Michel. It is well deserved. My respect and thanks go to Chuck, himself, and to his associates. Sean? Clint? that means you guys too! __________________ Listings of the Current 2A Cases: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416973

October 22, 2011, 10:49 PM	#26
seed Senior Member Join Date: September 9, 2004 Posts: 410	So what's the short and fast? Can someone please summarize what is going on now?

October 22, 2011, 11:18 PM	#27
Aguila Blanca Senior Member Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 4,833	State banned mail order ammo sales. CalGuns and NRA sued. State Lost. State is appealing.

October 23, 2011, 03:29 PM	#28
Dan F Member Join Date: July 13, 2011 Location: MD gah Posts: 28	No, Aguila, I have to differ... That state is really not very appealing. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

October 23, 2011, 07:13 PM	#29
seed Senior Member Join Date: September 9, 2004 Posts: 410	So does anyone know how likely they are to win their appeal?

October 23, 2011, 08:43 PM	#30
Al Norris Staff Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 8,756	I don't think it very likely, but I'm biased. Without reading the States opening brief, it's really kinda hard to actually say. We will know more, next week when the State files.

October 29, 2011, 09:36 PM	#32
HoraceHogsnort Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 2008 Location: Stanislaus Co., Mexifornia Posts: 615	madmag wrote: "One of my sons just moved to CA from NJ....kinda like going from the skillet to the skillet." Its actually more like going from the latrine trench to the outhouse pit!!

May 19, 2013, 11:51 PM	#37
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 101	Checked the docket and here is the status. On May 9. 2013, the court announced that it was ready to decide the case without the benefit of oral argument, unless requested by a party. On May 16, the State requested oral argument. Argument will likely be scheduled in the next 45-90 days, and the court will then have 90 days to issue its decision. So we can expect a decision by early fall, perhaps sooner. The up side of this case is that the odds favor affirmance of the trial court decision. The downside is that last year the Legislature passed a bill that sought to correct the deficiencies of this law. Governor Brown in vetoing the new bill suggested that any new law should await the resolution of the lawsuit--which is pretty smart thinking because if there is a reversal and Brown had signed the new law, there would be competing statutes on the books. Not dissuaded by this obvious logic, the vetoed bill (or some modification thereof) is up for consideration in the Legislature again this term. The big difference now is that there is a veto killing supermajority of gun banning democrats in both houses.