Judge Nelson asks how Jacobson affects this case. Kleinfeld asks about the level of scrutiny that should be used.
Nelson asks if it matters how long the closures were: What if it was one day?

Kleinfeld says he's skeptical of the court imposing itself on government in a fast-moving situation.
Kleinfeld tells Villanueva that some of the restrictions seem "wildly nonsensical" to him.
Kleinfeld: Why couldn't gun dealers bring purchased guns out to customers, so they didn't need to go into the store? Grocery stores did that. Doesn't make any sense. "Make sense of it for me."
Kleinfeld compares the gun stores/range restrictions to similar restrictions on churches.
Villanueva talks about "the gun industry." Kleinfeld says that people were scared of social disorder and a lot of people were buying guns. Says Villanueva isn't really talking about the gun industry's interests, but the consumer's interest in getting guns for self-defense.
Villanueva says they started allowing gun stores/ranges to open when the federal government changed its guidelines. Nelson asks if that's an acknowledgement that they made the wrong decision at the beginning. Says it's not clear "why there wasn't a respect for the 2A upfront."
Nelson says it seems like the 2nd Amendment wasn't viewed as a "serious right"
Nelson says it would be one thing if the sheriff said he made a mistake and that 2A rights were violated, but he actually said that it's not essential at all
VanDyke asks if there was any data behind the decision to keep open certain places like bike stores, but not gun stores and ranges.

Villanueva says the stay-at-home order has some justification. VanDyke wants a more detailed answer than that.
Villanueva says gun buyers have to demonstrate gun safety when buying guns. VanDyke says that's not a thing in most other states.

VanDyke asks if the argument here is that California's strict gun laws make the gun-buying process more likely to spread COVID than in other states.
Kleinfeld says he doesn't like the like of arguments Villanueva is going down. Says the ban also affected outdoor gun ranges. Why?
Villanueva says the rangemaster stands close to people to make sure they're being safe.

Kleinfeld says they don't even have rangemasters at his range. Nelson says that argument "is a little ironic" because the point is to give the shooters space while you watch them.
VanDyke asks if there's even a law requiring rangemasters (whose presence is being used as a reason ranges could be closed). Villanueva says he doesn't know, but doesn't think so.
VanDyke says he's only shot guns once in California, and there wasn't a rangemaster within 6 feet.
VanDyke says he doesn't understand what the government interest is in this case. Asks Martinez how he would win under intermediate scrutiny. Martinez says there was no tailoring in the restrictions.
Martinez mentions "all the of hypothesizing that went on in the last 10 minutes" regarding what the justifications were. Says Villanueva never thought about it, they just did it.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Rob Romano

Rob Romano Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @2Aupdates

18 Oct
Nelson asks McDougall about mootness. Asks if it fits into capable of repetition but evading review, or should be just kept alive for damages. McDougall says the county never said they wouldn't do it again, and they still have the power to do it again.
VanDyke asks how neutrality plays into the 2nd Amendment (as opposed to the 1st Amendment).
VanDyke says the 9th Circuit has really watered-down the concept of reasonable fit in regards to the 2nd Amendment.
Read 22 tweets
14 Oct
NYSRPA v. Bruen (#SCOTUS, 20-843): Reply brief for petitioners

"The state now retreats to the equally indefensible claims that the right vanishes in 'populous areas' and extends only to those with a 'non-speculative need' to exercise it." supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…
"When the state is not rewriting the historical record, it is attacking arguments petitioners did not make, while defending a law it did not pass and licenses it did not issue."
"The Court should reverse the decision below and hold that petitioners have a right to do what even the state now concedes the Constitution protects: bear arms outside the home for self-defense."
Read 31 tweets
14 Oct
NEW: Fischer v. Remington (S.D. OH): Federal judge orders man to pay Hornady $3,600 after falsely claiming that his rifle contained the company's ammo when it exploded, when it was actually using handloaded ammo from 1993. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
From Hornady's motion for sanctions: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Mr. Shope sent a letter to the court last May after learning that Hornady wanted sanctions against him, where he said that the company "was kinda nasty with me" and that "it wasn't a deliberate lie or my grandson would have won, not lost."
Read 5 tweets
13 Oct
It doesn't apply to the police's guns, though
Claims that "ghost gun purveyors" have "preyed on vulnerable communities"
Complains that a website didn't force them to fill out a 4473:
Read 4 tweets
5 Oct
"What really propels the plaintiffs’ view that Congress is constitutionally foreclosed from eliminating or curtailing the SALT deduction is their position that, until 2017, Congress had never done so. We disagree that the Constitution imposes such a constraint on Congress."
"And while they argue that the SALT deduction lowers 'the effective cost of state and local taxes,' they point us to nothing that compels the federal Government to protect taxpayers from the true costs of paying their state and local taxes."
"In fact, the history of the deduction helps the Plaintiff States virtually not at all."
Read 10 tweets
28 Sep
Judge Benitez: "Well, that's -- that's -- that's the problem. Is that, you know, California's got so many laws and -- you basically have to have a lawyer at your hip in order to know whether when you are handling a firearm you're violating the law and committing a felony."
Benitez said during the Miller trial that "it dawned on [him] that the statute that bans this type of weapon actually discriminates against people of lower income," and they're good to use on the coyotes that are taking out his chickens.
Benitez asks California if there's a better source for the availability of banned-in-CA guns in other states than the companies distributing them. California says a government agency. Benitez asks which one would have that data. California: 🤷‍♂️
Read 41 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(