+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Bruen impact on CA gun laws (/showthread.php?tid=24728)
Bruen impact on CA gun laws - PVBoom - 07-19-2022
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-17/supreme-court-ruling-in-new-york-reshaping-trajectory-of-california-gun-law-cases
Bruen impact on CA gun laws - Zeneffect - 07-19-2022
2A? how about at the very least 1A, 2A, 8A...
CA SB 1327
Section 1021.11
"1021.11. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, any person,
including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory
or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political subdivision, a
95
SB 1327 20
governmental entity or public official in this state, or a person in
this state from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation,
or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that
represents any litigant seeking that relief, is jointly and severally
liable to pay the attorneys fees and costs of the prevailing party.
(b) For purposes of this section, a party is considered a
prevailing party if a court does either of the following:
(1) Dismisses any claim or cause of action brought by the party
seeking the declaratory or injunctive relief described by subdivision
(a), regardless of the reason for the dismissal.
(2) Enters judgment in favor of the party opposing the
declaratory or injunctive relief described by subdivision (a), on
any claim or cause of action.
© Regardless of whether a prevailing party sought to recover
attorneys fees or costs in the underlying action, a prevailing party
under this section may bring a civil action to recover attorneys
fees and costs against a person, including an entity, attorney, or
law firm, that sought declaratory or injunctive relief described by
subdivision (a) not later than the third anniversary of the date on
which, as applicable:
(1) The dismissal or judgment described by subdivision (b)
becomes final upon the conclusion of appellate review.
(2) The time for seeking appellate review expires.
(d) None of the following are a defense to an action brought
under subdivision ©:
(1) A prevailing party under this section failed to seek recovery
of attorneys fees or costs in the underlying action.
(2) The court in the underlying action declined to recognize or
enforce the requirements of this section.
(3) The court in the underlying action held that any provision
of this section is invalid, unconstitutional, or preempted by federal
law, notwithstanding the doctrines of issue or claim preclusion.
(e) Any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who
seeks declaratory or injunctive relief as described in subdivision
(a), shall not be deemed a prevailing party under this section or
any other provision of this chapter. "
Sitting on scum's desk right now.
Bruen impact on CA gun laws - grayfox - 07-19-2022
how about some good quotes and excerpts from the article? I refuse to subscribe and do not want them getting money from badgering me with their ads...
regarding that above CA law... gets over ruled by federal law.
Problem out there is, getting an honest judge to rule on the stuff.
Bruen impact on CA gun laws - LRRPF52 - 07-19-2022
Zeneffect Wrote:2A? how about at the very least 1A, 2A, 8A...
CA SB 1327
Section 1021.11
"1021.11. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, any person,
including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory
or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political subdivision, a
95
SB 1327 20
governmental entity or public official in this state, or a person in
this state from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation,
or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that
represents any litigant seeking that relief, is jointly and severally
liable to pay the attorneys fees and costs of the prevailing party.
(b) For purposes of this section, a party is considered a
prevailing party if a court does either of the following:
(1) Dismisses any claim or cause of action brought by the party
seeking the declaratory or injunctive relief described by subdivision
(a), regardless of the reason for the dismissal.
(2) Enters judgment in favor of the party opposing the
declaratory or injunctive relief described by subdivision (a), on
any claim or cause of action.
© Regardless of whether a prevailing party sought to recover
attorneys fees or costs in the underlying action, a prevailing party
under this section may bring a civil action to recover attorneys
fees and costs against a person, including an entity, attorney, or
law firm, that sought declaratory or injunctive relief described by
subdivision (a) not later than the third anniversary of the date on
which, as applicable:
(1) The dismissal or judgment described by subdivision (b)
becomes final upon the conclusion of appellate review.
(2) The time for seeking appellate review expires.
(d) None of the following are a defense to an action brought
under subdivision ©:
(1) A prevailing party under this section failed to seek recovery
of attorneys fees or costs in the underlying action.
(2) The court in the underlying action declined to recognize or
enforce the requirements of this section.
(3) The court in the underlying action held that any provision
of this section is invalid, unconstitutional, or preempted by federal
law, notwithstanding the doctrines of issue or claim preclusion.
(e) Any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who
seeks declaratory or injunctive relief as described in subdivision
(a), shall not be deemed a prevailing party under this section or
any other provision of this chapter. "
Sitting on scum's desk right now.
Maybe CA needs to be reminded what supremacy means. 2A is an explicit restriction on government from interfering with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
People >>>>> Federal Government >>>>> State Government
SCOTUS has reaffirmed this in the recent decisions.
This doesnt mean the State can come in and write asterisks next to supremacy and act like it doesnt exist because some self-absorbed CA attorneys wrote themselves a note.
In this case, the big words and overpriced tuition these idiots paid for their law degrees are missing the fundamentals.
Bruen impact on CA gun laws - Two Tone - 07-24-2022
If the SCOTUS was true to the Bill of Rights, they'd send the army in to arrest every blue state administration for violating said Bill of Rights.
No right can be taxed via a permit and no state can bar any citizen from exercising their rights in any state.