Rhode v Bonta

[Dvrjon]

The wife buying ammo in Az and gifting to her husband in the parking lot was funny af

I've been advocating for that reading since the law was passed. It's stupid, but it's legal.

 

[Dvrjon]

1. They chewed on the U.S. attorney kind of hard...almost like they didn't appreciate his presence.
2. The Second Chair for the State is the attorney who argued and lost to the Panel.
3. Erin Murphy scares the hell out of me. She knows her stuff, leans in on the podium and doesn't let the judges interrupt her. Then, she tells them she doesn't agree with their reading of the law, and explains what other cases mean and why they are or aren't relevant.

 

[Pythonfan]

Just listened to the whole thing in frustration. Didn't go well in my opinion.

I'm surprised, when prop 63 4 year license was brought up, our side didn't take the time to mention that the states decision to pivot to point of sale opened the door for the 11% excise tax and gave it an enforcement mechanism.

It opens the door to additional hoops if it stands. There's no telling how hard they'll push if this stands. We'll end up with a low cost background check and 5 hurdles that cost 1000% to the consumer.

With the 4 year license the state would have had a harder time collecting their extortion money.

 

[treelogger]

Some of the exchanges have been pretty spicy thus far.
VanDyke asked if the permitting footnote (9) of Bruen would allow CA to require background checks before a gun owner goes to the range to shoot.
"I hesitate to pose the hypothetical because I don't want to give California any ideas"

VanDyke is doing exactly what Benitez also likes to do: Please his "constituency", which is hard right wing pro-gun people. What he fails to consider is that his real audience is the other judges, in particular the Supreme Court justices. By making himself into a political clown, he kills his own credibility. Not that he has much left, after that video dissent.

 

[treelogger]

1. Erin Murphy scares the hell out of me.

She's very good. No wonder, given whose firm she's second-in-command of.

But ultimately, the quality of the litigator is often less important than the quality of the argument they make. We put too much weight on the theater production that is the courtroom hearing.

 

[DBilleb]

This case and Benson v USA in DC are huge. I have hope.

-dale

 

[Dvrjon]

She's very good. No wonder, given whose firm she's second-in-command of.

Being where she is didn’t make her good. She’s been good, persuasive and successful which caused Clement to join with her and leave their previous firm.

But ultimately, the quality of the litigator is often less important than the quality of the argument they make. We put too much weight on the theater production that is the courtroom hearing.

There’s little theater when the judge questioning her shuts up, sits back and listens while periodically nodding to her points.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

Just listened to the whole thing in frustration. Didn't go well in my opinion.

I'm surprised, when prop 63 4 year license was brought up, our side didn't take the time to mention that the states decision to pivot to point of sale opened the door for the 11% excise tax and gave it an enforcement mechanism.

It opens the door to additional hoops if it stands. There's no telling how hard they'll push if this stands. We'll end up with a low cost background check and 5 hurdles that cost 1000% to the consumer.

With the 4 year license the state would have had a harder time collecting their extortion money.

What hearing did you watch?

 

[Pythonfan]

This is not good. With the DC case going the opposite direction, I thought they might have taken it this past Fri.

En Banc oral arguments before the 9th Circus:

 

[Dvrjon]

Just listened to the whole thing in frustration. Didn't go well in my opinion.

The state presented the background check as a licensing scheme. The Judges didn’t appear to accept that. In fact, one brought up the issue that the Proposition held a licensing process, but state legislators abandoned that licensing scheme when they amended the law to require ongoing background checks.

I'm surprised, when prop 63 4 year license was brought up, our side didn't take the time to mention that the states decision to pivot to point of sale opened the door for the 11% excise tax and gave it an enforcement mechanism.

The ammunition background check program had nothing to do with the 11% excise tax law. Granted the current process registers the ammunition purchase, but dealers assess sales tax without the need for a background check system. Excise tax could be handled the same way.

It opens the door to additional hoops if it stands. There's no telling how hard they'll push if this stands. We'll end up with a low cost background check and 5 hurdles that cost 1000% to the consumer.

Not sure I see where you’re going, here.

With the 4 year license the state would have had a harder time collecting their extortion money.

The State has no problem obtaining fees for the Firearms Safety Certificate or Sales Tax or DROS Fees or Excise Taxes. They would have no problem devising a DROS-like system to provide background checks and issuance through FFLs just as they do with firearms. (In fact, that’s what they built.) But you’d only have to go through it once every four years instead of every time you purchase. Frankly, they could swing the current system to a licensing scheme by putting the price at $50 and running the Standard or Basic Check ammo check. When it comes back cleared, the vendor can hand you your ammo and your license. The next time around, you just show the license.

The reason they don’t like the 4-year card is the length of time between issuance clearance and expiration of that clearance. We’re bound to do bad things in the interim.