News out of California: Preliminary Injunction granted in Gun Show case

[SDGuy]

Saw that this just happened:

"The California legislature recently enacted two statutes that effectively ban gun shows at the Orange County Fairgrounds and, more broadly, on state-owned property. Plaintiffs, a group of gun show proprietors and enthusiasts, sued the Governor of California and other state officials and agencies in an effort to invalidate those two state statutes.

Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction...Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Defendants are preliminarily ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from enforcing the two state statues at issue."

[btfc]

‘ Bruen Step-Two Analysis ‘

In view of the Court’s determination that SB 264 and SB 915 burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment, “the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2127. To satisfy that burden, the state must show that “historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense” and that “that burden is comparably justified” while “engaging in an analogical inquiry.” Id. at 2133 (citing McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767).

Bruen instructs that “analogical reasoning under the Second Amendment is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check” and that a “well- established and representative historical analogue” need not be a “historical twin.” Id. (emphasis in original). Furthermore, the Supreme Court directed that the “job of judges is not to resolves historical questions in the abstract,” but to “resolve legal questions presented in particular cases or controversies.” Id. at 2131 n.6 (emphasis in original). “Courts are thus entitled to decide a case based on the historical record compiled by the parties.” ‘

[pdq]

Trump appointee.

Also, why are you posting Bruen? In the latter, Clarence of this SCOTUS sez Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many.

So much for legal precedence. These guys makeup the rules as they go along. Pure Calvinball.

[btfc]

“ Also, why are you posting Bruen? “

Did you read the decision?

That’s why.

[pdq]

I'm just saying Thomas in Bruen specifically rejects a two-step approach which was previously in common use.

Calvinball.

[Tiangou]

Corrupt justices beget bad judgments that spread additional bad judgments like a virus.

...Unlike most Trump appointees, he seems qualified for the position.

...Tho his nomination was a little suspect since it appears to have been based entirely on his anti-immigration stance and membership in the Federalist Society rather than his accomplishments as a bankruptcy attorney with a specialty in intellectual property settlements.

[RgrF]

In all reality bankruptcy attorneys are accountants.

[Racer X]

I noticed everyone so far completely ignored the 1st A claims, all 7 of them. Massive freedom of speech violations. And a 14th A violation as well.

And when it comes to hardware bans, Heller is the one to follow. When it is behavior/actions, it is Bruen.

It was ruled unconstitutional on 3 different Civil Rights!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMGmUjYsCWI&t=2s

[Tiangou]

Smote wrote:
I noticed everyone so far completely ignored the 1st A claims, all 7 of them. Massive freedom of speech violations.

BS.

Commercial speech is not subject to the same protection as political speech.

[Racer X]

Tiangou wrote:
[quote=Smote]
I noticed everyone so far completely ignored the 1st A claims, all 7 of them. Massive freedom of speech violations.

BS.

Commercial speech is not subject to the same protection as political speech.
I'll drop my pants so you can kiss my butt. Read the ruling, starting at page 12. or watch the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMGmUjYsCWI&t=2s

William Kirk esq knows the law.

"(b) Central Hudson Test
Having concluded that SB 264 and SB 915 restrict commercial speech, the Court
now applies intermediate scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s test in Central Hudson. See
Retail Digital Network, LLC v. Prieto, 861 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2017) (upholding application
of intermediate scrutiny through the Central Hudson test). As described above, the sale of
lawful firearms involves commercial speech protected by the First Amendment, thereby
implicating the “lawful” portion of the Central Hudson test. See Nordyke 1997, 110 F.3d
at 712 (“The ‘lawful’ portion of the Central Hudson test presents no difficulty in this
case.”). Here, much like in Nordyke 1997, the Court will not address whether it is within
the power of the state to restrict the sale of certain classes or types of weapons at gun
shows. Assuming that the weapons that Plaintiffs sell conform with state and federal law,
the sale of those weapons constitutes a lawful activity for the purposes of commercial
speech. See id. at 710 n.3."

"Insofar as SB 264 and SB 915 impose restrictions on commercial speech by banning
the sale of firearms, those restrictions are unreasonable in the context of the Orange
County Fairgrounds. "

section a covers the 1st A, starts at p12, 2A starts at p20, and section c covers the 14th A starting at p27.

And the painfully ignorant lawmaker who proposed these had no idea that firearms don't actually change hands at these gun shows! miley-laughing001: CA has a 10 day waiting period, and all firearms are picked up at the dealers place of business after undergoing the background check and 10 day wait. CA does NOT have a gunshow loophole. miley-laughing001: