Today is the day I start shipping the Velcro backers for those people who purchased them. I’m going to lead J.Kb. through the process so he can ship the patches. Thank you for your patience when I jumped the gun.

Miguel noticed my Tuesday Tunes was Sing, Sing, Sing and called me on not posting the best version:

The one version that everybody must hear — Miguel.

You can read about it: The Famous 1938 Carnegie Hall Jazz Concert

Numerous briefs have hit in the Rahimi case at the Supreme Court. The Court will be hearing oral arguments in November. I’ll start looking at these briefs this coming week. This should be easier as they are all in defense of The People and the Second Amendment.

J.Kb., did you give one of our “Dick Shooters” patches to Clint?

B.L.U.F.What do all of those citations mean, and why is it important?

(1900 words)

There are two types of items that can possibly be cited in a legal “brief”. Those are the opinion or ruling of the court, and things submitted to the docket of a case.

With “real” legal briefs and opinions, they never(?) cite to docketed material in other cases. They might cite to items on this case’s docket. These are sometimes difficult to figure out, but it is possible.

Most of the problems stem from abbreviations. As an example, when a case is appealed, the parties might be asked to submit a “joint appendix”. This is often a multi-volume submission of hundreds of pages with all referenced works listed. In the latest filing by the state in Duncan v. Bonta the state cites some 28 different documents.

This is similar to the bibliography that some of my posts include.

Once the Joint Appendix is filed, the parties refer to those citations by “JA #”, where “#” is the number of that entry in the joint appendix. This makes it somewhat easier for the people reading to recognize the citations they have already processed. All it takes is a checkmark next to that citation to tell the reader they have already read and analyzed that citation.

For us, common people, it means we have to find the joint appendix and access it to look up a citation. I’m almost to the point where I want to write software that takes a PDF of these references and turns it into a spreadsheet.

Names

Read More

B.L.U.F.Short discussion of the level of honesty from the state.

I’m under the weather, so nothing too long, I hope. (I can hope, it just doesn’t happen.)

(2200 words)

Duncan v. Bonta is the case that started in 2017 challenging California’s magazine ban. Judge Benitez found magazine bans to be unconstitutional. He enjoined the state from enforcing the magazine ban. Thousands of magazines flowed into the state.

The state begged for a stay while the case was on appeal. Judge Benitez granted that stay in part. Those people who possessed forbidden magazines were protected as well as those that received magazines during the injunction, as well as the people who ordered during Freedom Week but had not yet received their magazines.

Since there was no emergency motion for a stay, the case was assigned to a three judge panel. The three judge panel agreed with Judge Benitez. The opinion of the three judge panel was written by Circuit Judge Lee.

The state asked for an en banc hearing. As expected, it was granted. The en banc panel then found in a 7 to 4 opinion that a magazine ban was constitutional and vacated the three judge panel’s opinion. Judge Vandyke wrote a fantastic dissent on the case, slamming the majority.

The plaintiffs (good guys) appealed to the Supreme Court. The request for certiorari was not granted, nor was it denied. The case was held pending the outcome of Bruen. After Bruen was decided, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the en banc panel’s opinion, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit.
Read More