Replies

Shining a little light on the California judicial cockroaches:

The usual Cartelfornia gun-grabbing clownshow starts up:

City petitions the Santa Clara Superior Court for an order of forfeiture of the weapons pursuant to §8102(c) on the ground that a return of them could endanger Edward Rodriguez or others. The judge, while acknowledging that Lori Rodriguez was eligible to purchase and possess other firearms, grants the City’s petition over Lori’s objection.

Thug in magic blue suit grabs guns.

Lori appealed that decision, and the California Sixth District Court of Appeal on April 2, 2015, affirmed in an unpublished opinion by Acting Presiding Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian.

Following the issuance of that opinion, Lori Rodriguez assumed sole ownership of all 12 weapons and registered them in her name and obtained gun release clearances from the California Department of Justice. In light of that, she asked for a return of the weapons.

The city declined, and she filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Lori Rodriguez then argued that the seizure and retention of the firearms violated her rights under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and that she was also entitled to return of the firearms under California Penal Code § 33800 et seq.

Federal Judge Edward J. Davila [ClownBammy "judge", and "swell pals" with everybody in the Santa Clara Superior Court, having been elevated from there. His Democrat wife Mary Greenwood is Presiding Justice of the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District, which is also involved in this Lefty car crash] grants summary judgment in favor of Defendants (the city and others), and against Rodriguez.

Lori Rodriguez appeals to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and gets a three-judge panel consisting of J. Clifford Wallace [Nixon judge who was 90 years young at the time of this decision, and who "grew in office"], Richard R. Clifton [Dubya "judge" who "grew in office" - he's a Trump Wall blocker] and Michelle T. Friedland [ClownBammy "judge" who was confirmed 51–40, and another Trump Wall blocker. Friedland and her Globalist pal Clifton's Wall machinations later got slapped down by the Supremes 5-3.].

They affirm Democrat Davila's summary judgment in favor of the City of San Jose on July 23, 2019.

"We hold that Lori’s Second Amendment claim is barred by issue preclusion and that her Fourth Amendment claim fails on the merits. We therefore affirm."

==============================

Talk about running a gauntlet of gun-grabbing Lefty judge-thugs...

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca9-17-17144/pdf/USCOURTS-ca9-17-17144-0.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1057.html

No. 19-1057
Title:	         Lori Rodriguez, et al., Petitioners
                 v.
                 City of San Jose, California, et al.
Docketed:	 February 25, 2020
Linked with 19A653	
Lower Ct:	 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  Case Numbers:	        (17-17144)
  Decision Date:	July 23, 2019
  Rehearing Denied:	September 24, 2019

DATE	        PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS
Dec 11 2019	Application (19A653) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 23,
                2019 to February 21, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.
                
Dec 12 2019	Application (19A653) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 21, 2020.

Feb 21 2020	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 26, 2020)

Apr 08 2020	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2020.

Apr 20 2020	Response Requested. (Due May 20, 2020)

Here's the Petition for a writ of certiorari:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1057/133818/20200221125837603_Rodriguez%20Cert%20Pet-Final-PDFA2.pdf

Appears as though someone(s) might be getting a trip to the Supremes' Woodshed:

This case involves the unconstitutional seizure and retention of legal firearms from a person legally entitled to have them, both at the time of the seizure and now.

The initial seizure violated the Fourth Amendment because it was made without a warrant for lawfully possessed firearms that posed no imminent danger.

The continuing refusal to return such firearms, despite it being undisputed that it is entirely lawful for Petitioner Rodriguez to purchase and possess firearms and her complete compliance with state law and procedures for ensuring the safe storage and control of such firearms violates the Second Amendment under any conceivable standard given its complete irrationality.

Indeed, because Petitioner stated such an obviously meritorious Second Amendment claim, the Ninth Circuit manufactured a meritless issue preclusion defense in a now-familiar bid to circumvent the Second Amendment.

At a minimum, this case should be held for a decision in No. 18-280, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which could provide intervening authority bearing favorably on the Second Amendment question and thus eliminate any prospect of issue preclusion even as improperly manufactured by the Ninth Circuit...

I wonder who is writing this Petition?:

The district court also rejected Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment takings claim with the circular conclusion that because the confiscation of the firearms was supposedly lawful, the refusal to return the firearms could not be a compensable taking.

Suffice it to say, that holding is embarrassingly wrong, contradicts the City’s concessions that Petitioner retained a property interest in the firearms, App. E8, E17, but is not independently cert.- worthy.

It does reinforce, however, the disdain with which the rights of firearms owners are treated by some judges in the Ninth Circuit.

The Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim and the pendent state law claim were summarily dismissed and are not at issue in this Petition.