On December 20, 2023, District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney of the Southern District of California granted the plaintiffs (good guys) motion for a preliminary injunction.
This enjoined (stopped) the state of California from enforcing California Senate Bill 2. This was the “every place is sensitive, no guns allowed” bill.
Quoting Judge Carney, . SB2’s coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.
Reno May v. Robert Bonta, 8:23-cv-01696, (C.D. Cal. Dec 20, 2023) ECF No. 45.
Of course, the state started whining like a little baby when their infringement was slapped down. They went running to the Ninth Circuit to get an emergency stay.
The only surprise in this was that it took the state two whole days to file for the emergency stay.
While waiting for the emergency administrative panel to give their order, The People of California, lucky enough to have a CCW, could carry in all the places they use to be able to carry.
On December 30, 2023, Judges Johnnie B. RAWLINSON, Jay S. BYBEE, and Andrew D. HURWITZ granted the stay. This meant that on January 1st, 2024, The People of California could no longer carry. It was impossible, or nearly so, to carry with a CCW without violating a sensitive place restriction.
We do not know whether this was a three to zero ruling or a two to one ruling.
There were no more filings after the December 30th order. But the plaintiffs must have been working hard, behind the scenes. How do we know that? Because yesterday afternoon, the 6th of January, the stay was dissolved. At least one judge on the Ninth Circuit had the gonads to stand up for The People.
All the filings have been forwarded to the merits panel.
The case is going to be heard on the merits? Wow?
What is even more amazing is that it will be heard in April. To put this in perspective:
Punch it Chewy!
Comments
2 responses to “May v. Bonta, Good news!”
It’s good news indeed! As someone with a CCW in CA, I was giddy to see the latest order.
Minor nitpick, if you don’t mind: there were two filings after the Dec. 30 order: one from California (bad guys) asking to consolidate the two anti-SB2 cases into one (since there’s a lot of overlap and it is more efficient to treat them as one). This was uncontested by the good guys in both suits.
The second was a motion by the good guys to overturn the Dec. 30 order.
See https://michellawyers.com/may-et-al-v-bonta/
You are correct, I missed it. I saw the motion for consolidation, but not for reconsideration. I even looked at the Michell’s page. My error. Good catch.