Posted on 12/09/2022 3:19:23 AM PST by marktwain
On July 22, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law California Senate bill 1327. The bill applied fee-shifting in cases where civil rights litigants filed lawsuits challenging California firearms law. In essence, if the plaintiffs filing the lawsuit did not win every part of a case against the state, the plaintiffs would be required to pay all the State’s costs. In the unlikely case where the plaintiffs won every part of their suit, they are not awarded any costs they have incurred.
On September 26, 2022, a number of plaintiffs filed suit against the state, claiming the bill violates the Supremacy Clause, the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. From the complaint:
1. Plaintiffs bring this suit to challenge the constitutionality of a recently enacted California law that seeks to suppress firearms-related litigation by putting civil rights litigants and their attorneys on the hook for the government’s attorney’s fees and costs if a case results in anything short of total victory for plaintiffs on every claim alleged in a complaint.
2. On July 22, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 1327, which includes a one-way fee-shifting penalty in the government’s favor that applies solely to litigation challenging state and local firearm regulations. 2022 Cal. Stat. ch. 146, § 2 (adding Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.11(a)). In simple terms, Section 1021.11enables government defendants to recover fees if a firearms plaintiff loses on any claim in the case, while the plaintiff can only avoid liability for fees if it prevails on every claim in the case. Firearms plaintiffs, moreover,cannot be “prevailing parties” under Section 1021.11, meaning they are never entitled to fees.
Many of the ongoing challenges to California firearms law in federal court are directly implicated and endangered. As the law is worded, challenges that have been in the legal system for many years, which have already been all the way to the Supreme Court, and now remanded to the Ninth Circuit, could be rendered moot by the fear of plaintiffs of financial ruin under the new law.
In court, California Attorney General Rob Bonta claimed the lawsuit was moot because he would not enforce the law if a Texas abortion law were ruled unconstitutional. Judge Benitez did not find the argument convincing. One state may not threaten to destroy its residents’ Constitutional rights as a way to extort another state to change its law, even if the first state considers the other state to be in violation of the Constitution.
Here is to hope the Supreme Court will have enough influence to teach them otherwise.
It may not ever get to the Supreme Court. It’s such an obvious violation of the Constitution that it will likely get kicked out by even the 9th Circuit.
California is, in a word, evil.
Any law that impinges on the defense of the right to keep and bear arms, impinges on the right to keep and bear arms.
“California is, in a word, evil.”
In two words: Diabolically evil.
Sigh
The road in California is paved with beautiful intentions, too.
Oh well
Government has figured out they can do what they want until someone sues and the court rules. Until that time in the distant future, the government is free to do what they want. If and when a court rules against them, it’s either back to the drawing board to reinvent the plan with the new law or Disregard the court’s ruling and wait for someone to sue and go through the whole process again. Government has turned to ‘play out the clock’ governance.
"Saint" Benitez comes through again. This is the same judge that summarily dismissed the magazine ban case Duncan v. Becerra, the ammunition background check law Rhodes v. Becerra, and the assault weapon ban Miller v. Bonta.
The magazine ban case was sent back to his court by the Supreme Court via the 9th Circuit, and there is a very important hearing on Monday.
The other two cases are also working their way through the appeals process, and in light of Bruen, have a very good chance of Benitez's rulings being upheld at the 9th Circuit level.
Hey Californians .... do you remember when you had a chance to dump Gavin Nobrain and you re-elected him ... remember elections have consequences.
that would be san fran down the coast to san diego who voted to keep the bastard
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.