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

[Echidin]

The 9th circus strikes again. Judge Van Dyke and seven others dissenting. I really like this Judge Van Dyke. He’s been pretty solid on the 2A. Maybe a potential for SCOTUS if Trump gets another appointment this term. Speaking of SCOTUS, the likelihood of them taking this case without a final judgement is pretty slim. SCOTUS doesn’t seem to like to get involved in interlocutory appeals.

 

[1911-CV]

Time to get on with the main case. NY already has a verdict and we're still chasing a better preliminary injunction.

 

[Malibu]

Well, here we go again. This will continue to fund the appellate industry for a few more years. The state will benefit as the law will continue to be enforced, the police will have more reasons to arrest and confiscate property, and the citizens continue to have rights denied and be screwed in the whole drawn out process.

 

[NorCalBusa]

CRPA interview Chuck at Shot Show 1/23/2025, May v. Bonta;

 

[Dvrjon]

From the CRPA, today:

CRPA's challenge to the state's conceal carry laws was denied in our en banc petition. This request for en banc review would have overturned a lower court ruling on a preliminary injunction and would have stopped enforcement of the restrictive state law. With the Ninth Circuit denial of our request, CRPA had tough decisions to make. After further consideration of the ruling in May v. Bonta, the best course of action is to pursue a final judgment in the lower court rather than take an interlocutory appeal on the injunction ruling to the Supreme Court. Given the low odds of success of such appeals when there is no circuit split and no final judgment in the case, we do not want to drag the case out and instead want to push forward to a final determination in the trial court that gives us better petition on appeal. [In an interview at SHOT Show, CRPA President Chuck Michel addressed the latest in the case. WATCH NOW!] We will still file amicus briefs in the Supreme Court in support of any case dealing with sensitive places, such as the Wolford matter if the Hawaii plaintiffs seek cert. However, we think it is in the best interests of permanently resolving these issues to reach a final judgment quickly, in case the Supreme Court once again decides to wait for final judgment appeals. Unfortunately, this does mean that some places will soon be off-limits for carry in California while our lawsuit proceeds. The biggest change to the status quo is that parks, places that serve alcohol, and libraries will now be off limits, in addition to some other places like casinos, stadiums, museums, and amusement parks (though such places often banned carry themselves anyway). The full list of places one CAN still carry legally after the mandate issues and while we continue to fight in the court includes: "(7) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, nursing home, medical office, urgent care facility, or other place at which medical services are customarily provided. (8) A bus, train, or other form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a transportation authority supported in whole or in part with public funds. (10) A public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from a federal, state, or local government and sidewalk or street immediately adjacent to the public gathering or special event but is not more than 1,000 feet from the event or gathering, provided this prohibition shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through a public gathering in order to access their residence, place of business, or vehicle. (22) A church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, including in any parking area immediately adjacent thereto, unless the operator of the place of worship clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that licenseholders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size. (23) A financial institution or parking area under the control of a financial institution. (26) Any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that licenseholders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size." However, despite the very tough panel we were assigned, the Ninth Circuit did uphold several portions of our district court win, including places where conceal carry will still be allowed such as public transportation, churches, banks, hospitals, public gatherings, the private property default, and the parking lots serving those places. As the ruling makes clear, shared parking lots are also fine. For example, if you are visiting a bank that shares a parking lot with a bar, you can carry in the parking lot as long as you don’t go into the bar. CRPA will keep fighting for the final judgement in this case and your support is needed more than ever as we work to protect the Second Amendment in California and overturn these unconstitutional laws.https://crpa.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=10f1b2be1fbee7acd9ac7bb79&id=ee4e330376&e=2042a82f8a

[TR] [TD][TABLE] [TR] [TD][LEFT] ​ ​ ​ [/LEFT]​ ​ ​ ​

​

​

​

[/TD]
[/TR]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[4super9]

CRPA filed an amicus brief to SCOTUS in support of Antonyuk v James. I gotta say, it is beautifully written:
https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Antonyuk-v.-James-2025-02-21-Amicus-Brief.pdf

 

[4super9]

Since there has been no update here since my last post from 8 months ago, I decided to look into this further.
May v Bonta has been stayed pending an upcoming case at the Supreme Court, Wolford v Lopez, which is a challenge to the "vampire" law in Hawaii. A decision is anticipated in June 2026, at which time, the remaining aspects of May v Bonta will be retried.
Here is a good youtube summary:

CRPA filed an amicus brief to SCOTUS in support of Antonyuk v James. I gotta say, it is beautifully written:
https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Antonyuk-v.-James-2025-02-21-Amicus-Brief.

 

[4super9]

I keep throwing updates here. I am a bit surprised at how little ongoing discussion there is here on SB2, given it is the most serious threat to CCW.

Anyway, Wolford v Lopez was heard today at SCOTUS. Looks like it will be a slam dunk win for right to carry, which will allow the other components of SB2 to be re-tried. The vampire rule is already stayed here, but we need most of the rest overturned. I am completely okay with not being allowed to carry in a nuclear facility. Boy was that a necessary call-out. I would, however, like the right to carry in a state park, where there are so many lunatics lurking, and in a restaurant that so happens to also serve alcohol. SB2 makes me feel like a criminal, and I now rarely carry.

 

[11thfinger]

Whats the current state of the fight against SB2?

 

[Dvrjon]

Whats the current state of the fight against SB2?

2 posts above your question. Wolford has been heard and we will see a decision in late June.

 

[Dvrjon]

For those expecting the Wolford case (Carry on private property), today’s Orders (Case 24-1046) grant submission of a brief from our side After Argument (which was done in Jan ‘26).

The Brief notifies the SCOTUS of two cases (Fourth Circuit; Maryland. Second Circuit; New York) which overturn those state’s Private Property Default Rules as unconstitutional.

This may trigger additional briefing from Hawai’i and delay a decision.