"Because the government has the burden, the lack of evidence would cut in favor of Plaintiffs’ challenge. But this case ends early under the Ninth Circuit’s pre-emptive carve-out for longstanding restrictions, described next."
"It also means that a citizen may not bring an otherwise protected weapon, for example an AR-15 rifle, into a school, the Capitol, a courthouse, a church, or other sensitive places where a legislative body has prescribed reasonable regulations."
"If judges accept Young’s invitation to uphold firearm restrictions without further analysis, a longstanding firearm restriction may be left stuck in the past, only because it has not been challenged before the present."
"Unlike modern restrictions that have no historical pedigree, for example, prohibitions on AR-15 platform rifles... or prohibitions on large capacity magazines... or mandatory ammunition background checks... or the shrinking handgun roster provisions..."
"For a step-two inquiry, DeCiccio’s means-end analysis is sound and this Court would likely agree."
"Plaintiffs argue that the historical prevalence raises merely a rebuttable presumption of constitutionality and that they have rebutted the presumption. The assertion is unsupported by anything more than a scintilla of evidence. But it does not matter under [CA9] precedent."
"Under controlling precedent precluding further analysis, because the 104-year-old regulation is longstanding, it is therefore beyond the sweep of the Second Amendment."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: NAGR v. Grisham (D. NM): NOTICE of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2023 at 01:00 PM in Albuquerque - 420 Mimbres Courtroom before District Judge David H. Urias. courtlistener.com/docket/6777918…
Donk v. Grisham (D. NM): NOTICE of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2023 at 01:00 PM in Albuquerque - 420 Mimbres Courtroom before District Judge David H. Urias. courtlistener.com/docket/6777944…
We The Patriots USA v. Grisham (D. NM): NOTICE of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2023 at 01:00 PM in Albuquerque - 420 Mimbres Courtroom before District Judge David H. Urias. courtlistener.com/docket/6777953…
The defendants note that the proposed amended complaint removes the previous claims (that were apparently too insane even for Everytown) and basically changes the entire lawsuit: civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquir…
"On cross-examination, he acknowledged that he stuck his phone about six inches (15 centimeters) from Colie's face while the translate app repeated the phrase 'Hey dips---, stop thinking about my sparkle' in English and Spanish." apnews.com/article/youtub…
"Colie backed away from the 6-foot-5 Cook (196 cm), who kept advancing toward Colie even as Colie said 'no' and 'stop' and pushed Cook's arm away. Then, Cook said, when the two were separated by a small distance, Colie pulled out an handgun and shot him in the abdomen."
"Cook said he's been posting pranks online for about a year. He said he was trying to avoid mall security while he filmed the prank on Colie because they had confronted him in the past. A survey of his YouTube channel finds a series of off-putting stunts..."
Wiese v. Bonta (E.D. CA): Ryan Busse's newest declaration in support of gun control is for CA's magazine ban (again). At $150/hr, it's almost identical to yesterday's filing in WA (without the part recommending bolt-action rifles for self-defense). storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
This section was in the Washington filing but not in the California one, probably because most (if not all) of those handguns aren't on the roster:
The committee chair said the choice to make this testimony only was "after extensive conversation with the author" and "to allow time for more stakeholder conversations and to help her get to a better place with the bill": senate.ca.gov/media/senate-t…
A rep from the American Property Casualty Insurance Association is speaking in opposition to the bill, saying it "would require insurance to cover intentional criminal acts."
A rep from the Personal Insurance Federation of California is now speaking in opposition to the bill, saying its not opposed to gun insurance, but it would require coverage for injuries to household members, which would be "unworkable to our companies":
2) They require permits to be submitted and interviews to be conducted during office hours, preventing people who can't take off work from getting them
3) They ban guns on public transportation, preventing people without cars from carrying anywhere past walking distance
4) They require live-fire training, making it difficult for people without nearby ranges to get permits (especially combined with #3)
5) They require multiple non-family references, preventing people with anti-gun friends from getting permits