Month: February 2024

.......

Friday Feedback

Feb 2, 2024 Anonymous Web Angel(GFZ)

The Casinator project is moving forward. Unfortunately, every step forward requires me to learn something new.

In the best of all worlds, I want to be able to send out the prints for this out to a shop to see what they quote me for parts.

Back in October, the exercise bike started acting out. It would work ok, and then decided that the resistance needed to be higher. It got to the point where I didn’t want to get on the bike.

My lady did a wonderful thing and found a free exercise bike. We got that replacement in Early December. This one has a different set of patterns. Which has taken me a bit of time to get used to. The biggest improvement, besides actually working, is that I can set the time for a session. I’m now back to doing my rides 5 days a week. Sometimes 16 minutes, when I have meetings, sometimes 40 or even 48. It is difficult to push to 40, much less to 48.

With the ability to set the levels a little lower and the time a little higher, I’ve found that I’m moving better, overall.

We are starting to see cases leave the interlocutory stage. This is great news. It means that the appeals court has to actually do work that the Supreme Court will be willing to slap down.

Unfortunately, my visibility into the filings in the 9th Circuit are limited by dollar bills. They are changing their ECF system, and CourtListener does not currently have a way to capture documents retrieved from the new system. It actually looks to me as if the new system is designed to stop CourtListener.

Speaking of which, the California has admitted in filings that ammunition are arms, as are magazines. Good news for us.

They have filed their appeal in the ammunition background check case. They claim that they must have an emergency stay because if they don’t, bad guys might order ammunition online. Gee, in 2020 100s of prohibited people ordered magazines. Never mind that they currently have an error rate greater than 20%. I.e. they falsely deny people more than 20% of the time.

The state claims that the Supreme Court has already said that these sorts of ammunition background checks are constitutional. Then they do the standard of flipping things upside down. Under US law, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Under California statutes, you are presumed prohibited until proven otherwise.

Have yourself a wonderful Friday. We look forward to reading your comments

.......

Good Results in Two Cases

Feb 1, 2024 Anonymous Web Angel(GFZ)

Rhode v. Becerra, 3:18-cv-00802, (S.D. Cal.) which is the California ammunition background check has had final judgement in. Judge Roger T. Beitez found for The People, again.

This was the ammunition background check and no import of ammunition.

The state has requested a stay pending appeal and if not stay is not granted, they are requesting a 10-day stay so they can run to mommy, err, the Ninth Circuit for a stay from them.

They requested that the court issue one of those stays by 1400 Jan 31st. They claim that they have been infringing on the rights of The People for so long that they should be allowed to continue, while awaiting the results of an appeal to the Ninth.

Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority, 5:23-cv-01540, (N.D.N.Y.) has to do with forcing people to give up their rights as part of contract agreements.

In particular, if you accept government housing, sometimes known as Section 8 housing, the lease/rental agreement you sign prohibits you from having a firearm in your home.

Judge Gleen T. Suddaby, the same judge who has given The People other wins, found that this is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, this is still New York state, so while they can now possess firearms in their homes, they are not allowed to display, use, or possess firearms in the common areas, grounds, or parking areas.

So they can own a gun, they can possess the gun, but they can’t carry it into or out of their home.

Update before being published.

Defendant requests a stay of this Court’s Decision and permanent injunction pending appeal, or in the alternative, a 10-day administrative stay. The Defendant says that, “[i]f the Decision is allowed to stay in effect, it would irrevocably alter the status quo by enjoining enforcement of laws that have been in effect for over four years; allowing prohibited California residents to acquire ammunition during the appeal; and jeopardizing public safety.”

“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result. It is instead ‘an exercise of judicial discretion,’ and ‘the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.’” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009). In exercising its discretion, a court is to be guided by four legal principles or factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Id. “The first two factors … are the most critical.” Id. at 434. The Defendant here has not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits, i.e., the first factor, or the likelihood of irreparable injury, the second factor.

As to the first factor, the Defendant’s case on the merits is weak, failing both the interest balancing test and the history and tradition test. As to the second factor, the Defendant argues irreparable injury will occur without a stay because prohibited California residents will be able to acquire ammunition during the appeal. “[S]imply showing some ‘possibility of irreparable injury,’ fails to satisfy the second factor…, the ‘possibility’ standard is too lenient.” Id. at 434-35 (citations omitted). While there is the possibility that prohibited California residents will be able to acquire ammunition without a stay, there continues to exist criminal laws against the possession of ammunition by prohibited persons under both state and federal law. This Court’s decision in no way affects those laws and the Defendant is free to continue to enforce the same. Consequently, the second factor does not weigh in favor of a stay. The third and fourth factors weigh heavily against granting a stay as the enjoined laws are infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens.

This Court has given the State plenty of opportunity and time to provide analogues or other evidence to demonstrate the validity of its ammunition background check laws. The Decision simply requires a return to the status quo ante litem as it existed prior to the effective dates of SB1235 and Proposition 63. Having considered the relevant factors, and for many of the same reasons articulated in this Court’s Order denying a stay of the preliminary injunction order (filed Apr. 24, 2020, Dkt. 62), the request for a stay pending appeal and an administrative stay is denied.
[xCite item=”2RQLSGG8″ pos=0]