Eye-Opening Updates on AB 28 Tax and 2A Lawsuit Delays

Published on May 15, 2024
Duration: 23:00

This video discusses the stagnation of Second Amendment lawsuits in California and the Ninth Circuit, attributing it to lower courts' resistance in applying the Bruin methodology established by the Supreme Court. It also details the upcoming 11% excise tax on firearms (AB 28) and the legal challenges involved. The discussion highlights the importance of the historical tradition test and the ongoing legal battles to ensure consistent application of Second Amendment rights.

Quick Summary

California's Second Amendment lawsuits are stagnating as lower courts resist the Bruin methodology, leading to delays. Assembly Bill 28 will impose an 11% excise tax on firearms, expected to increase consumer costs. Legal challenges to AB 28 are complicated by the requirement to pay the tax before challenging it.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: Court Stagnation & AB 28 Tax
  2. 00:20Welcome and CRPA Lawsuit Updates
  3. 01:02Setting the Stage: Lawsuit Stagnation
  4. 01:22The Heller Decision and Standard of Review
  5. 03:18Courts Distorting Heller and Bruin
  6. 04:17Duncan v. Bonta and Supreme Court Waiting Game
  7. 05:23Judicial Bias and Resistance to Bruin
  8. 06:45Twisting Bruin Methodology to Uphold Gun Control
  9. 07:09Ninth Circuit: Duncan on En Banc Review
  10. 07:17Waiting for Supreme Court in Rahimi Case
  11. 08:11Recent Movement in Lawsuits (May, Crossroads, Duncan, Miller)
  12. 08:39Lower Courts Holding Breath
  13. 09:00Duncan as Leading Case in Ninth Circuit
  14. 09:31Supreme Court Taking Second Amendment Cases
  15. 10:26Shifting to Assembly Bill 28 Excise Tax
  16. 11:34Legal Challenges to AB 28 Tax
  17. 12:16Slowing Down Lawsuit Filing: Paying the Tax First
  18. 13:03Strategy for Challenging the Tax
  19. 13:52View Forward: Lawsuit Stagnation & AB 28
  20. 14:06Ongoing Second Amendment Litigation
  21. 14:20Win: Non-Violent Felon Firearm Possession Case
  22. 14:48Amicus Brief in Fully Automatic Firearm Case
  23. 15:42Applying the Bruin Test Correctly
  24. 17:41The Game is Still afoot: Decisions Coming Down
  25. 18:05Other Litigated Cases and New Ones Queued
  26. 18:19Bill 1160: Tax and Registration Threat
  27. 19:03High Stakes and Their Agenda
  28. 19:33Death by Gun Control Book Reference
  29. 19:45Duarte Lawsuit: Non-Violent Felons' Rights
  30. 20:17Why Second Amendment Advocates Support Felon Rights
  31. 22:18Conclusion and Future Outlook

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main reason for stagnation in California's Second Amendment lawsuits?

Stagnation is primarily due to lower courts, especially in the Ninth Circuit, resisting the Bruin methodology. Judges are reportedly twisting the Supreme Court's rulings or reintroducing old tests, leading to delays in case resolution and inconsistent application of Second Amendment rights.

What is Assembly Bill 28 and how does it affect gun owners?

Assembly Bill 28 imposes an 11% excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and magazines in California. While levied on manufacturers, this tax is expected to be passed on to consumers, increasing the cost of firearms and related products, and will take effect on July 1st.

How are courts attempting to circumvent the Bruin standard of review?

Courts are attempting to circumvent the Bruin standard by reintroducing a two-step test, misinterpreting the scope of the Second Amendment, or focusing on historical interpretations that do not align with the Supreme Court's intent, effectively trying to uphold gun control laws despite the Bruin ruling.

Why is challenging the AB 28 excise tax legally complex?

Challenging AB 28 is complex because of the doctrine requiring taxpayers to pay the tax before challenging it. The tax's effective date of July 1st means legal action can only commence after payment, and the nature of the tax itself presents different legal hurdles than direct Second Amendment rights violations.

What is the significance of the Duarte lawsuit regarding non-violent felons?

The Duarte lawsuit, which resulted in a ruling that non-violent felons cannot be convicted solely based on their felony status, is significant because it aligns with the principle of individualized determination of dangerousness, a key aspect of Second Amendment jurisprudence, rather than allowing blanket bans on entire groups.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from CRPA TV

View all →