Nguyen, et al. v. Bonta, et al., 24-2036

[doser]

doser submitted a new resource:

Nguyen vs Bonta - Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Nguyen, et al. v. Bonta, et al., 24-2036, (9th Cir.) involves challenges to California’s firearm regulations, including the “1 in 30” rule. The “1 in 30” rule in California restricts individuals from purchasing more than one handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle within a 30-day period. This regulation is intended to limit bulk purchases of firearms, which could be diverted to illegal markets or contribute to gun violence.

In the case, the plaintiffs argue that the “1 in 30” rule...

Read more about this resource...

 

[doser]

doser updated Nguyen, et al. v. Bonta, et al., 24-2036 with a new update entry:

CALIFORNIA “1-IN-30” FIREARM BAN BLOCKED FOLLOWING NINTH CIRCUIT ORDER

On August 15, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a stay in the Nguyen v. Bonta case, allowing the district court’s judgment and injunction against California’s “one-gun-per-month” law to take effect. This ruling, brought forward by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), prevents California from enforcing its “1-in-30” ban on firearm purchases, allowing residents to purchase multiple firearms within a 30-day period unless a new stay is issued by the Court. The...

Read the rest of this update entry...

 

[Malibu]

What surprises me about this is that it hasn’t been stayed yet again, pending an enbanc hearing. That course of action is normal for the 9th, as a delay tactic.

 

[treelogger]

It's not a delay tactic.

Actions by the court (such as injunctions and appealable judgements) are often stayed, if there (a) is a good chance they will not stand in the long run, and (b) if applying them in the short term causes harm. In this case, the fact that the district court granted the injunction, and that the 9th circuit didn't block the injunction, seem to indicate that there is a high probability that the ultimate decision will go that way. And in this case, even if ultimately the final (post-appeal) decision goes the other way, not having 1-in-30 for a few weeks or a year doesn't do any serious or irreparable harm.

In many other cases, not enforcing laws or contracts does cause harm, which is why court decisions are very often enjoined or delayed. This even happens in the lowliest of courts, small claims: Often the judge will find that the defendant has to pay, but instead of entering judgement immediately, they give the defendant 30 days to pay, with a deferred judgement. If they pay, the case is mooted, and doesn't show up on the record. If they don't pay, after 30 days the deferred judgement is entered, and now sits on the defendant's credit report.

There is an old German saying: the mills of justice grind slowly. A lot of the deadlines and wait periods are very intentional, to give all sides time to respond appropriately.

 

[Malibu]

The 1-in-30 rule absolutely does irreparable harm. Again, after watching all the other 2A cases crawl through the 9th, with most going enbanc is totally a delay tactic, IMO. The state is banking on a changing SCOTUS after January 2025, and doesn’t want more 2A cases being taken up by the current court.

 

[treelogger]

I intended the first argument to go the other way: Suspending the 1-in-30 rule for a few months does not do irreparable harm. Certainly, a few more guns may be sold, but the total number will not increase explosively (guns are too expensive for that). And even without 1-in-30, all gun purchases will get run through the background check. So in my opinion, the courts were correct when they enjoined the rule from being enforced.

The state doesn't control the 9th circuit. En banc is sua sponte, and that's the court doing it. And we all have to fully expect that the state's attorney use every possible procedural tactic to determine the merits of the state law, and that includes all possible appeals. Matter-of-fact, if the AG simply rolled over and refused to defend a state law passed by the legislature where there is hope that it will be upheld by the courts, then that would be malpractice by the attorneys for the state (of which the AG is one), and would probably lead to bar association sanctions.

By the way, the same slow motion of the appeals process was visible 4 and 8 years ago, when it was foreseeable that SCOTUS would change in the different direction (as it did). I've been involved in gun civil rights for over 20 years, and things have always been done in many steps. For an example of really slow, see Nordyke: while many people laugh about it today, we have to remember it as the case that decided, for the first time, that the 2A is incorporated.

To be blunt: You see way too much conspiracy theory here. That paranoia doesn't get us anywhere.

 

[Malibu]

Paranoia?…how about watching a good number of my father’s life-long friends grow old and slowly die off of old age while being “patient” while the courts were left to sort things out.
As to the state legislature and the 9th, I see them as being in bed together. After having this discussion with a very prominent federal judge within the 9th (who obviously I will not mention his name), I am firmly in this belief. Being that many were appointed by democrat presidents, there is that as well.
It looks to me as though the legislature enacts these bad anti 2A laws, the courts roll very slowly, anti-2A LE agencies (read: CA DOJ) happily enforce them. Meanwhile the citizens are screwed. I’ve been watching this increasing burden of bad law for the past 44 years, and very little of it has been changed for the better.

 

[Sputnik]

Indeed. Many of the 9th CCA judges are s and carry the DOJ’s burden in court. Occasionally the stars align and we get a panel of what we’d call honest judges and we get 1 in 30 tossed. Will it end up enbanced ? It wouldn’t surprise me but that’s for another day.