What do you think this means LiveLife? What would be your educated guess about what Judge Sabraw is going to tell the plantiff and defendant?
I think what we are starting to see is lower courts falling into compliance with Supreme Court's Bruen ruling directive of using "text and history" approach only for 2A cases ... While
Boland v Bonta case deals with CA handgun roster,
Renna v Bonta case deals with CA handgun roster and self-manufactured handguns. Since judge Carney stated CA government fails to point out well-established historical analogues to handgun ban (CA already stated handgun roster is first of its kind in the nation), judge Sabraw will likely ask for well-established historical analogues to self-manufactured handgun ban.
Update to
Boland v Bonta (CA handgun roster) and
Renna v Bonta (CA Unsafe Handgun Act/Handgun roster) -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-legal-challenges.913421/page-2#post-12582571
In light of preliminary injunction for
Boland v Bonta by judge Carney, judge Sabraw held a telephonic status conference for
Renna v Bonta and issued a preliminary injunction on 4/3/23 stating the following -
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...57157/Renna_v_Bonta_81_Opinion.pdf?1680557157
Determining the scope of the Second Amendment and whether it covers the conduct at issue is “rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.” In Bruen, the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment in light of “historical tradition” and held the Amendment protects all arms “in common use,” and “handguns . . . are indisputably in ‘common use’ for self-defense today.”
Because the arms at issue (semiautomatic pistols) are handguns, and handguns are “indisputably in common use” today, semiautomatic pistols categorically are “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment. The Amendment does not parse between types, makes and models of arms (See Heller) ... All handguns are covered, so long as they are in common use. Thus, Plaintiffs’ ability to commercially purchase offroster semiautomatic handguns falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment and is presumptively protected.
... b. Historical Precedent - The State has the burden of showing relevant “historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding [that] evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.” “[W]hether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified are central considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.” ... Bruen cautioned “[t]his does not mean that courts may engage in independent meansend scrutiny under the guise of an analogical inquiry.” The key question, therefore, is whether the challenged law, here the CLI, MDM, and microstamping provisions of the UHA, and the State’s proffered analogues are “relevantly similar.”
... the “why” of the 1805 stamping requirement is not comparable to microstamping under the UHA, as the former requirement served only to verify that the arm had been tested, was safe—in that it fired without barrel bursting or otherwise failing, and could be sold. California’s microstamping requirement is designed to assist law enforcement in criminal investigations, not firearm discharge safety.
... the CLI, MDM, and microstamping provisions prohibit retail sales in the state of a significant segment of the most common self-defense firearm sold in America today.
... Under the three-for-one roster removal provision, for each approved semiautomatic pistol added to the roster, “three semiautomatic pistols lacking one or more of the applicable features ... are removed ... Therefore, the three-for-one removal provision cannot be severed as it is not “fully operative without the invalid provisions.” As such, the California Legislature could not have intended for it to stand independently of the invalid provisions. The three-for-one removal provision is therefore enjoined.
... The UHA has prohibited commercial sales of the handguns at issue for more than a decade. This lawsuit has been pending since November 10, 2020, and the parties have litigated at a leisurely pace since its inception. Everyone was waiting for Bruen. Its arrival does not erase the prior pace of this litigation, and need not hasten it now.
Moreover, the district court in Boland recently enjoined enforcement of the CLI, MDM, and microstamping provisions. There, the court stayed enforcement of the injunction for fourteen days pending the State’s decision whether to file an appeal. The State filed an emergency motion for partial stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction issued in Boland. The Ninth Circuit granted the State’s motion, and issued a stay as to the CLI and MDM requirements of the UHA.
On March 22, 2023, after the decision in Boland was filed, this Court held a status conference with the parties. Both parties requested that the Court issue its decision, as this case was filed first and presents issues not addressed in Boland [Self-manufactured firearm in addition to UHA/Handgun roster]. Therefore, the Court issues its decision herein but stays enforcement pending appeal or further hearing on this matter.
For these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS the following:
(1) Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED as to California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions);
(2) Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as to all other challenged provisions of the UHA;
(3) Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing California Penal Code §§ 31910 (b)(4), (5), (6) & (7) (CLI, MDM, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions);
(4) posting of bond is waived; and
(5) the preliminary injunction is STAYED pending appeal or further hearing on this matter, whichever occurs first.
The Court sets the matter for a telephonic status conference on April 14, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., at which time the parties shall advise the Court how they wish to proceed.
Dana M. Sabraw,
Chief Judge
United States District Court
- https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...and-renna-v-bonta.919621/page-2#post-12689763
