Justice Department Sues California to Halt Glock Ban

[2aJayy]

Please explain what argument the US DoJ has made (or can make) that haven't already been made by other lawsuits on the same matter.

And the US DoJ just being the US DoJ is not an argument in and of itself. On the contrary, with the rapid demise of most skilled attorneys from the federal agencies, and the laughable and baseless lawsuits the DoJ has been throwing at all the walls like spaghetti, their filings will be read with a jaundiced eye. I see the whole idea of the US suing states over already settled matter as nothing other than political grandstanding and campaign advertising for republicans.

Your skepticism is not unwarranted, but maybe this video explanation of the DOJs argument in this lawsuit will help open up some optimism for you and any other skeptics:

TLDR; this lawsuit has some teeth to it with serious implications for potential success and subsequent relief

 

[ALWAYSARMEDOC]

They are suing under statutes that normal citizens and second amendment foundations cannot. They are suing states under deprivation of constitutional rights and the deprivation of rights by law-enforcement. Those specific statutes or lawsuits have not been tried yet. Also, with all the new Supreme Court precedence on how to handle a second amendment case cases under Hermani, Lopez which were clarifying and affirmingHeller and then extension bruin.

 

[ALWAYSARMEDOC]

Hopefully it finishes in time in case we swing back to a Democrat president and then they drop the lawsuit.

I AGREE

 

[adrkwan]

Transferred to Judge Mónica R. Almadani who also has May v. Bonta on her docket. May was stayed until Wolford was decided and a status update is due this week.

 

[Gawernator]

Please explain what argument the US DoJ has made (or can make) that haven't already been made by other lawsuits on the same matter.

And the US DoJ just being the US DoJ is not an argument in and of itself. On the contrary, with the rapid demise of most skilled attorneys from the federal agencies, and the laughable and baseless lawsuits the DoJ has been throwing at all the walls like spaghetti, their filings will be read with a jaundiced eye. I see the whole idea of the US suing states over already settled matter as nothing other than political grandstanding and campaign advertising for republicans.

This is just propaganda, activist lawyers may have quit because they don't want to file for our rights, that's actually good news for us. Your bias is very obvious, let's be real. Treelogger is rooting for DOJ to lose because he doesn't want the current admin to continue to get more pro-2A wins.

 

[treelogger]

They are suing under statutes that normal citizens and second amendment foundations cannot. They are suing states under deprivation of constitutional rights and the deprivation of rights by law-enforcement. Those specific statutes or lawsuits have not been tried yet.

That's an argument, but a really bad one. Sure, they're suing under 34USC12601. That is indeed not available to individuals or associations. Those have to use 26USC1393 and friends, which I'm very familiar with (having been a party). But that argument is one about the color of the lipstick on this particular pig. Underneath both 12601 and 1393 lies the same fact pattern: plaintiff has to demonstrate "that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" (quote from 12601, 1393 has substantially the same requirement). And the cases under 1393 were not won, because plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that there is a right to keep or bear a Glock, or an off-roster pistol. The US DoJ is facing exactly the same question, and logically the answer will have to be the same. This is res judicata.

Now your point that Hemani might have changed things since Boland was first put on hold. That's absolutely true. And the sensible vehicle for taking advantage of that would be Boland, since it is already teed up, waiting for the Supreme Court to cross the i and dot the t (or something like that). At the underlying level, this new lawsuit doesn't add anything that isn't already in Boland, which is several years ahead in its progress. The best case is that this new case goes up to the 9th circuit, where it will be merged with Boland ... and we're back where we are right now, having wasted some judge's time and resources.

(Side remark: Autocorrect likes to mess with Hemani.)

 

[2aJayy]

Already off to a flawed start. How coincidental after that judge swap.

 

[TacDout]

Thinking ahead, what's all left after the aforementioned here in CA?

-11% excise tax
-roberti roos AW ban by name
-AW ban features for all platforms and not just rifles, like threaded barrels and suppressors for pistols
-online parts restrictions
-ammo background check & residential shipping restrictions
-10-day waiting period
-3 purchase transfers in 30 days
-5 sales transfers or 50 arms per 12 months

We'll likely be much older, if even fortunate enough to still be here by the time any of these ever get addressed, but can anyone think of anything else I'm forgetting?

Requiring permit to carry