Ninth Circuit ruling on May v. Bonta 9/6/24

[JohhnyDeluna]

Nothing nefarious here. The owner has no clue. This is also in the OC, in a very pro-2A community. The beer license has probably been in place for many years.

My point is that a law abiding CCW holder can be just going about their business, trying to comply with the law, and suddenly and surprisingly get caught off guard by entering an establishment where they assumed alcohol would NOT be sold. Most diners do not serve alcohol. Heck, this place is not even open for dinner. We are now expected to investigate every single place we eat prior to entering, and if there are no other options around that don't serve alcohol, we must go hungry. If McDonalds was to start offering beer (as they do in other countries), we are totally f**ked.

I usually check the menu online in advance to see if there's any alcohol served. That's not 100% confirmation though. You could be surprised as you say.
What a ridiculous oppressive law (as it was intended to be).

 

[JohhnyDeluna]

Bonta has until 10/29 to respond to the request for en banc review. (10/08 order, below).

10/14/2024	Appellees Reno May, et al.	Appellees-Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority per 28(j) re Christian v. James
10/08/2024	Court	Order Requesting Response from Appellant to Appellees’ Petitions for Rehearing
09/20/2024	Appellees Marco Carralero, et al.	Petition for Rehearing En Banc
09/19/2024	Appellees Reno May, et al.	Petition for Rehearing En Banc

May v. Bonta - Michel & Associates, P.C.

Case Name: Reno May, et al. v. Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California USDC Case No.: 8:23-cv-01696 Court of Appeal Case No.: 23-4356 U.S. District Court, Central District of California Filing Date Filing Party Document Description 8/4/2026 Plaintiff...

michellawyers.com

Small update to the above. State of Ca. filed their brief regarding the en-banc hearing. According to Kostas Moros, the state does not want en-banc, preumsably, they want the current ruling to stand, especially their take on the vampire rule. I think they're hoping the ruling stands until next year and then the state can amend their vampire law to match Hawaii's which requires some kind of permission to enter a place open to the public. Our side is hoping for en-banc or denial soon (by early next year) so if it is denied, it will go back down to the district trial court. The 9th panel vampire ruling is so outrageous, even the 2nd circuit (liberal panel) called them out in their latest ruling.
It will not stand, but the state is hoping they can take advantage at least for a while.

 

[Dvrjon]

Click HERE for the response.

 

[7.62mm_fmj]

It's so fortuitous that we have taxpayer funded lawyers to write volumes of disingenuous arguments to restrict our freedom, oblivious to the core truth of our nation's actual historical tradition, whereas any place that could possibly be considered "sensitive" must be protected by on-site armed security.

 

[4super9]

Hoping we can get some more reasonable and favorable people on the 9th with the upcoming administration.

 

[JohhnyDeluna]

Hoping we can get some more reasonable and favorable people on the 9th with the upcoming administration.

I remain more than optimistic that whether we get an-banc hearing, or it goes back down to the district judge, we will get a permanent hold on the 'vampire rule". The ruling and logic by the 9th panel, was so outrageous and 'out there', that even liberal judges and panels have struck it down including the 2nd circuit (twice!). The 9th made a ridiculous mistake (which by the way, I think even they realize now but will be reluctant to admit it).
However, if we don't get an overturning or clarification of this ruling by spring, CA will probably mischievously take advantage by amending SB2 to match HI.
And then we will be stuck with a modified 'vampire rule' for a few weeks or months.

 

[4super9]

Just stimulating discussion...
Calif filed their response on 10/29, objecting to the en banc hearing. What happens next, and is there any expected time-frame (reasonable or unreasonable)?
My assumption is that we are simply waiting for the 9th to consider the en banc.
If denied, what happens then? What are the various permutations/options of this?
If they agree what are the next steps? Additional filings/briefs, or does it go straight to a hearing and some specific date? If we lose, I imagine we appeal to SCOTUS? (If we win, I doubt Calif would appeal to SCOTUS, because the decision would obviously not be favorable to them, and make a nationwide standard)

My apologies if I got much or all of this wrong

 

[Malibu]

Just stimulating discussion...
Calif filed their response on 10/29, objecting to the en banc hearing. What happens next, and is there any expected time-frame (reasonable or unreasonable)?
My assumption is that we are simply waiting for the 9th to consider the en banc.
If denied, what happens then? What are the various permutations/options of this?
If they agree what are the next steps? Additional filings/briefs, or does it go straight to a hearing and some specific date? If we lose, I imagine we appeal to SCOTUS? (If we win, I doubt Calif would appeal to SCOTUS, because the decision would obviously not be favorable to them, and make a nationwide standard)

My apologies if I got much or all of this wrong

I would like an update on this as well; some of these cases have been twisting in the wind for so long that it’s a challenge to keep up. After the defeat of the ts at the White House in the last election, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 9th puts the brakes for as long as possible on any decisions, knowing they will be embarrassed yet again. But heck, perhaps their arrogance is so ingrained that they don’t even care.

 

[Librarian]

Just stimulating discussion...
Calif filed their response on 10/29, objecting to the en banc hearing. What happens next, and is there any expected time-frame (reasonable or unreasonable)?
My assumption is that we are simply waiting for the 9th to consider the en banc.
If denied, what happens then? What are the various permutations/options of this?
If they agree what are the next steps? Additional filings/briefs, or does it go straight to a hearing and some specific date? If we lose, I imagine we appeal to SCOTUS? (If we win, I doubt Calif would appeal to SCOTUS, because the decision would obviously not be favorable to them, and make a nationwide standard)

My apologies if I got much or all of this wrong

Yes, just waiting. Circuit Courts of Appeal have no deadlines.

Many of the cases were explicitly put on hold for Duncan.

9th may be waiting for SCOTUS to rule in Snopes (Maryland semi-auto ban). See https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snope-v-brown/ We'll hear whether they grant cert, maybe this month. If they do, probably means a 2026 ruling from SCOTUS.

IF en banc is denied, one or the other parties may seek certiorari to SCOTUS. If it would be granted, more briefs and administrivia for about 6 months from decision to allow en banc, then no deadline for a result. And then the loser appeals to SCOTUS.

Do you ever get the feeling things are rigged against clear and timely decisions? I sure do.

 

[Malibu]

Gosh, the Duncan case must be going on 8-10+ years now; are the original involved parties still living?

 

[weimer20]

I just geeked out and read all of the court filings on Duncan. (I need another hobby)

The arguments put forward by the state, coupled with the obvious gymnastics being performed by the 9th Circus, to avoid faithfully complying with the SC ruling in Bruen is truly depressing. A right delayed is a right denied.

The SC absolutely MUST take up some of these 2A cases and put a smack down on the non-compliant District Courts.

If anyone really wants to have a firm grasp of what we’re up against, read the relevant court filings in Duncan.

 

[4super9]

I don't understand the concept of a court not responding in a reasonable time. I mean, could they hold onto this for a hundred years with no consequences? At some point, there should be an option to turn up the heat on them, or get SCOTUS involved.

 

[Malibu]

I don't understand the concept of a court not responding in a reasonable time. I mean, could they hold onto this for a hundred years with no consequences? At some point, there should be an option to turn up the heat on them, or get SCOTUS involved.

What we are seeing first hand is the result of judicial appointments, and by extension the results of elections. These circus clowns masquerading as judges are doing exactly what their elected political masters decree, and the voters gave them the power to do so. If you want to end the gymnastics of the 9th, the judges whom we don’t like have to be replaced. With lifetime appointments we are for the most part stuck with them. Next time, don’t vote Democrat.

As to The Eunuchs of SCOTUS, they have clearly indicated that they don’t like to accept cases for review that have not been run fully through the entire appellate process first. The circuits know this, and use it as a tool for what seems like indefinite delay. They have effectively stalled some of these cases for a decade; what’s another four years?…nothing. They can wait it out until the democrats can appoint SCOTUS justices whom they think are favorable to their cause. Meanwhile, we gun owners grow old and die off.

 

[Librarian]

What could eventually happen is the extremely rare "PETITION FOR AN
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS"

QUESTION PRESENTED
Can the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals indefinitely
prolong or avoid its judicial duty when a judicial
process in the lower district court resulted obviously
in a criminal penalty being assessed within a civil
proceeding, whereby the citizens private rights would
normally act as a restriction upon the government in
order to affect the timely resolution of the matter
before them.

Whether SCOTUS would grant such a thing is another issue.

That one was denied - https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-949.html

See also https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_Rule_20

 

[treelogger]

Do you ever get the feeling things are rigged against clear and timely decisions? I sure do.

No, I don't think they are rigged. I think the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) are way understaffed and underfunded.

A while ago I read a statistic that compared the US Supreme Court to the various courts of last resort in other first-world countries, scaling it by the size of their economy and the number of court cases. By that statistic, our court should have about 150 justices, probably organized into a variety of chambers or senates. There is a reason the court only grants cert in less than 2% of all cases: it doesn't have the time to deal with the rest, even if they are very important. The same pattern holds for the federal courts and their appeals court, but there the problem instead turns into ever growing delays.

In California, state courts are functioning somewhat better than federal courts, but even there we're coming apart at the seams, with wait times of 1 year and more for run-of-the-mill civil cases (not civil rights, just business disputes). There is a reason so many businesses incorporate in Delaware: there you get an answer in weeks, not years.

 

[4super9]

I just saw on the old calguns site that the 9th denied the en banc review. What are the next steps?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.17324614-355b-47cf-905f-e9146009f176/gov.uscourts.ca9.17324614-355b-47cf-905f-e9146009f176.98.0.pdf

 

[Thelastkingofhk]

I think either it can go to SCOTUS or it goes back down for final judgement.

 

[Malibu]

The question could also be: how many more years until this is resolved, if ever?

 

[Dvrjon]

Time to roll out the Michel and Associates Flow Chart :
We are at the bottom: Active Judges Vote; Vote Fails. Once the original panel issues a decision, the next action is for filing of a Writ of Certiorari to the SCOTUS.

 

[4super9]

Time to roll out the Michel and Associates Flow Chart :
We are at the bottom: Active Judges Vote; Vote Fails. Once the original panel issues a decision, the next action is for filing of a Writ of Certiorari to the SCOTUS.

View attachment 29294

Thinks makes my head hurt