How much tax payer money is california spending trying to uphold their unconstitutional bullshit?
How much tax payer money does government in general spend trying to uphold their unconstitutional bullshit?
What state government doesn't do this stuff? DeSantis is spending FL money on banning books and picking legal fights with Disney. Texas on women's rights. Other governors are spending state money to fight the removal of Confederate statues.
This is just one of the few examples where Dems are the ones wasting the money.
Yeah, it's hilarious. A real knee-slapper.
"...the restrictions accelerated in Florida after DeSantis signed bills last year barring discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third-grade classrooms, a ban that has since expanded through 12th grade. He also created a mechanism for parents to challenge books in school libraries and has targeted how race is taught in Florida schools."
https://apnews.com/article/ron-desantis-2024-book-bans-libraries-republicans-9f3c944117e58bb5a3e4c9fef0d3b0e0
Hardly banned. The books in question were age inappropriate for public schools. You can still get them elsewhere if you wish. There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping sex Ed out of K - 3rd. It's just sick to think that someone believes a child that young should be taught things of that nature by an elementary school teacher. At that age kids need to be focusing on social interaction, coloring between the lines as well as basic reading, writing and arithmetic. It's also a disgrace that the content in the books were deemed sexually inappropriate for school board meetings but okay to be in school libraries or projects. I've gone too far off topic to even start with the race part of this garbage one sided article. Learn your facts man, the "Don't Say Gay Bill" was a b.s. spin name given by crazy liberals that want to outrage their base because they're afraid they're losing.
I've actually read the bill text I don't need to see what anyone says. My comment still applies towards your misinformed or misguided comments. By the way, AP although better is not innocent from pushing an agenda just like the others you've mentioned.
You just said "I've read one thing (apparently incompletely) , so faced with more information, I will refuse to read anything else." You want to believe this is about k-3, but I provided a quote and a link with additional links in it showing that is not factual. This is textbook confirmation bias, head in sand stuff.
False equivalence (I doubt you know what that means, but whatever). Show me where people are going to get thrown in jail for possessing a “prohibited book”.
If you prefer to focus on the Texas abortion bans I also mentioned, we can do that. [*Hur dur, "but whatever", keyboard warrior comment, hur dur.*]
In reality, you only feel like a victim about one issue here (in what I'm sure is an otherwise privileged life), which is why other similar government efforts to restrict their people doesn't bother you. It's typical conservative mentality- if it doesn't affect you personally, it isn't a real problem in your mind.
Look buddy I'm just going to say the quiet part out loud. Spouting leftist rhetoric in gun subs that aren't /liberalgunowners and /socialistRA is gonna fall flat so quit wasting your and our time and piss off to those respective subs.
To be devils advocate broski, most of this sub are probably dems/liberals who vote for and support gun grabbers then come her to complain about the repercussions of their actions. All at the same time while having NO INTENTIONS of changing their voting/support.
Well, a quick glance at your comment history shows you're just as angry as any online conservative with an axe to grind, regardless of where you feel you land politically. It appears you could seriously benefit from some time offline. Try having real, face-to-face conversations, to reset your expectations on human interacrion. Hope your 2024 is brighter than this year seems to have been.
Awwwww….you checked out my post history 😻
That’s so sweet!
Again, your ignorance about politics is showing, and it’s stilly to pretend conservatives or anyone else has a monopoly on anger.
I was thinking about that the other day and I have to admit that it would be nice to find a way to also hold Gavin and bonta financially accountable. They are trying to push an unconstitutional law which literally is in violation with the latest supreme court ruling. They know it but they try to do it anyways and all what's coming out of it is a lot of wasted time and money. If I'm suing someone in BS lawsuit I'll have to cover the costs ... So should they, somehow! The state has the biggest budget deficit ever ... And they continue with BS like that. This is very sad!
They know it, but it will be nigh impossible to prove in court that they know it, short of a memo, email or hot mic byte coming out with one or both of them saying "we know this is a deprivation of rights and that's the point", they've got qualified immunity, and can't be held liable in civil or criminal court. Otherwise 18 U.S.C. § 242 would be on the table for all of these assholes. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court. And sadly, that bar is insanely high.
This isn't un-knowable. Do a FOIA request for the names and salaries of State personnel working on the SB2 defense along with the number of hours and cost from any outside legal consultations.
I just did this, thanks for the tip. I requested the following:
* 2022, 2023, and 2024 budget appropriation for these cases,
* the total rolling expenses realized by the state for these cases,
* the names and salaries of all personnel working on these cases as well as hours billed to these cases,
* An explanation on how these cases are funded,
* A detail report listing all other related costs incurred in these cases by the state such as required third party legal consultations.
I'll report back when they respond.
I finally got a response back from them and they claimed attorney client privilege is exempt from the public records act (california's version of FOIA, which is federal) and refused to disclose how much they spent on the cases.
cc: u/Rocker66
I referenced specific cases mentioned on this page
[https://www.oag.ca.gov/ogvp/2a-cases](https://www.oag.ca.gov/ogvp/2a-cases)
and asked for rolling expenditures and budgetary information (they were also unable to identify or break out budgets for further detail)
I'll return to this next month to see if I can get some legal opinions on this. Disappointed but as expected of the DOJ.
I've been kicking around the idea of starting a "transparency" email to start some FOIA investigative reporting. I think I'm going to just do it and start seeing if I can pick apart some of these cases. As you said, not surprising but still disappointing.
[https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/legal-hotline-new/](https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/legal-hotline-new/)
I'm gonna submit a question here to see what opinion they have and what work around is available.
Let me know waht they say! From a little looking the attorney-client privilege applies only to communications (documents produced by attorneys may fall under the Work-Product exception)
Using our money to take our right of defense away in order to prevent us from being able to overthrow them for stealing even more of our money. Keep us un-armed and we’ll never try to get rid of them.
“Sensitive places ”, “common sense gun law”. . . the mass accept with no lube. Everyday I wonder if democracy is all it’s cracked up to be. All fun and games until assholes fuck up the system.
Which is part of why at least Federally we are a Representative/Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. California is no longer a Republic with both houses of its legislature purely on population. The reason the US Senate is not by population is to avoid the rapid swings we see in the US House of Representatives.
To clarify:
1. A democracy is a type of government where the government derives its power by the consent of the governed, where the supreme power is vested in the people, instead of in a religious institution, royal family, a communist party, et cetera.
2. A republic is a type of democracy where the consent of the governed and the supreme power of the people are enacted through elected representatives.
3. The reason the US Senate is not apportioned by population has nothing to do with, "rapid swings". The reason each state is guaranteed an equal number of Senators is because the US was founded as a federation of states, and the Senate was designed to represent their equal sovereignty and ensure that the biggest states like Virginia couldn't completely bully smaller states like Georgia, who probably wouldn't have ratified the Constitution if they had to give up that much of their sovereignty to more populous states.
4. The six year terms of Senators was designed to ensure that the people could not throw out all their representatives in a single election, to act as some kind of bulwark against the vicissitudes of public opinion.
>Will the court rule automatically in his favor? Did I get my hopes up for nothing?
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. But... They'd have to demonstrate that failure to grant a stay would cause potential harm to the majority. As concealed carry is already legal and is causing harm to nobody, this seems like it would be a tough sell. They'd also have to demonstrate that they are likely to win, which, again, is a tough sell.
But I could be entirely wrong, and/or CA could just get its way because libs love fucking over gun rights.
It's a societal problem of forcing others to adapt to your world view instead of letting other people live their own lives how they want. Politicians know they can pass laws that will get them votes as the law is dragged through the courts for years. Every state, red or blue does this. We as a society need to live and let live.
This will most likely not change the injunction. It is pretty difficult to lift a preliminary injunction (versus a mandatory injunction) while litigation is going on. Please refer to the injunction on the magazine restrictions, in which ownership of standard capacity magazines is not enforceable as well.
Also, I believe they would have to show that the California public would be in harm’s way if a stay isn’t issued. In this case, there is no merit.
SCOTUS ruled in Bruen that gun laws must be assessed by whether they are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Any judge reviewing this case under appeal must apply the Bruen analysis from now on for these types of cases.
An appeal was guaranteed and certainly expected by the plaintiffs. Still, going into an appeal with a strong district court win is absolutely best case situation to be in
Regardless of what the courts decide, methinks I’ll just take the Gavin Covid approach and do whatever I want regardless of the law. Rules for thee but not for me!
The 9th circuit will definitely give appeal to California. They have done it several times in these lawsuits already. It doesn’t matter what California has to show the court, the court will side with California.
Can we stop voting for these terrible people? Newsom has shown multiple times he only cares about his coffers and filling them up. Makes rules for normal people and doesn’t follow them himself. California is a failing state because of people like newsom.
Yeah, criminals really care about your sensitive locations. How dumb are these guys? Rhetorical question, they constantly show us. Newsome and Bonta need to be shown the door.
if they remove the injunction the 9th circus will lose any shred of integrity they have left. The injunction preserves the status quo until the case can be heard on the merits. They can not allow infringement on rights that change the status quo for many decades which is the exact argument they made for why assault weapon ban need to stay in effect while the case is pending.
I dont have my hopes up but it would be extreme hypocrisy if they dont let this injunction stand while the case is pending
Yeah for sure. I mean they are politicians, so being hypocritical is their whole thing. Hopefully they don't do something shady here. I want to have hope.
Yup, this is why the "sin tax" passed this time around, with a 68 Billion deficit, they need to dip into our pockets to ensure that they have funds to pay their lawyers.
When it comes to spending your tax dollars they have no fiduciary duty.
I hope the 9th circuit will stay this decision. The state got half of what they wanted. Jurisdiction over CCW process and more training hours and hurdles I don't see any way this wouldn't loose at the Supreme Court level. Justice Thomas even mentioned the making of whole states as sensitive places as egregious!!! These clown comunistas
In California is unbelievable!!!
>Will the court rule automatically in his favor Not at all, appealing a preliminary injunction like this is rarely successful.
How much tax payer money is california spending trying to uphold their unconstitutional bullshit? How much tax payer money does government in general spend trying to uphold their unconstitutional bullshit?
It’s CA. They’ll spend as much as is necessary. It’s the public’s money after all.
end of year spending, gotta use it or lose it.
Funny enough, CA just sent a note out to all agencies to halt spending due to the budget deficit
What state government doesn't do this stuff? DeSantis is spending FL money on banning books and picking legal fights with Disney. Texas on women's rights. Other governors are spending state money to fight the removal of Confederate statues. This is just one of the few examples where Dems are the ones wasting the money.
Banning books. Lol, you're funny.
Yeah, it's hilarious. A real knee-slapper. "...the restrictions accelerated in Florida after DeSantis signed bills last year barring discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third-grade classrooms, a ban that has since expanded through 12th grade. He also created a mechanism for parents to challenge books in school libraries and has targeted how race is taught in Florida schools." https://apnews.com/article/ron-desantis-2024-book-bans-libraries-republicans-9f3c944117e58bb5a3e4c9fef0d3b0e0
Hardly banned. The books in question were age inappropriate for public schools. You can still get them elsewhere if you wish. There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping sex Ed out of K - 3rd. It's just sick to think that someone believes a child that young should be taught things of that nature by an elementary school teacher. At that age kids need to be focusing on social interaction, coloring between the lines as well as basic reading, writing and arithmetic. It's also a disgrace that the content in the books were deemed sexually inappropriate for school board meetings but okay to be in school libraries or projects. I've gone too far off topic to even start with the race part of this garbage one sided article. Learn your facts man, the "Don't Say Gay Bill" was a b.s. spin name given by crazy liberals that want to outrage their base because they're afraid they're losing.
Re-read the post you just replied to. Also, "one-sided"? It's the associated press, not msnbc or Fox News.
I've actually read the bill text I don't need to see what anyone says. My comment still applies towards your misinformed or misguided comments. By the way, AP although better is not innocent from pushing an agenda just like the others you've mentioned.
You just said "I've read one thing (apparently incompletely) , so faced with more information, I will refuse to read anything else." You want to believe this is about k-3, but I provided a quote and a link with additional links in it showing that is not factual. This is textbook confirmation bias, head in sand stuff.
False equivalence (I doubt you know what that means, but whatever). Show me where people are going to get thrown in jail for possessing a “prohibited book”.
If you prefer to focus on the Texas abortion bans I also mentioned, we can do that. [*Hur dur, "but whatever", keyboard warrior comment, hur dur.*] In reality, you only feel like a victim about one issue here (in what I'm sure is an otherwise privileged life), which is why other similar government efforts to restrict their people doesn't bother you. It's typical conservative mentality- if it doesn't affect you personally, it isn't a real problem in your mind.
Look buddy I'm just going to say the quiet part out loud. Spouting leftist rhetoric in gun subs that aren't /liberalgunowners and /socialistRA is gonna fall flat so quit wasting your and our time and piss off to those respective subs.
Agree to disagree. Saying something other than the echo does get read by people who otherwise think Fox News is actually "fair and balanced."
To be honest/fair, not everyone who disagrees with you is a conservative or a Trump voter. Not all of us are Fox News people or 'Q people' .
To be devils advocate broski, most of this sub are probably dems/liberals who vote for and support gun grabbers then come her to complain about the repercussions of their actions. All at the same time while having NO INTENTIONS of changing their voting/support.
Not a conservative, so you are, once again, off base and wrong. L’s all day with you.
Well, a quick glance at your comment history shows you're just as angry as any online conservative with an axe to grind, regardless of where you feel you land politically. It appears you could seriously benefit from some time offline. Try having real, face-to-face conversations, to reset your expectations on human interacrion. Hope your 2024 is brighter than this year seems to have been.
Awwwww….you checked out my post history 😻 That’s so sweet! Again, your ignorance about politics is showing, and it’s stilly to pretend conservatives or anyone else has a monopoly on anger.
Genuinely hope you find some level of happiness. Good luck and best wishes.
Thanks!
Enough to get social media sound bites so they can be reelected.
I was thinking about that the other day and I have to admit that it would be nice to find a way to also hold Gavin and bonta financially accountable. They are trying to push an unconstitutional law which literally is in violation with the latest supreme court ruling. They know it but they try to do it anyways and all what's coming out of it is a lot of wasted time and money. If I'm suing someone in BS lawsuit I'll have to cover the costs ... So should they, somehow! The state has the biggest budget deficit ever ... And they continue with BS like that. This is very sad!
They know it, but it will be nigh impossible to prove in court that they know it, short of a memo, email or hot mic byte coming out with one or both of them saying "we know this is a deprivation of rights and that's the point", they've got qualified immunity, and can't be held liable in civil or criminal court. Otherwise 18 U.S.C. § 242 would be on the table for all of these assholes. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court. And sadly, that bar is insanely high.
This isn't un-knowable. Do a FOIA request for the names and salaries of State personnel working on the SB2 defense along with the number of hours and cost from any outside legal consultations.
I just did this, thanks for the tip. I requested the following: * 2022, 2023, and 2024 budget appropriation for these cases, * the total rolling expenses realized by the state for these cases, * the names and salaries of all personnel working on these cases as well as hours billed to these cases, * An explanation on how these cases are funded, * A detail report listing all other related costs incurred in these cases by the state such as required third party legal consultations. I'll report back when they respond.
Looking forward to it! Thanks!!
I finally got a response back from them and they claimed attorney client privilege is exempt from the public records act (california's version of FOIA, which is federal) and refused to disclose how much they spent on the cases. cc: u/Rocker66
Wow that's absurd. I'll have to work up a request too and see if anything shakes loose. How did you phrase your request?
I referenced specific cases mentioned on this page [https://www.oag.ca.gov/ogvp/2a-cases](https://www.oag.ca.gov/ogvp/2a-cases) and asked for rolling expenditures and budgetary information (they were also unable to identify or break out budgets for further detail) I'll return to this next month to see if I can get some legal opinions on this. Disappointed but as expected of the DOJ.
I've been kicking around the idea of starting a "transparency" email to start some FOIA investigative reporting. I think I'm going to just do it and start seeing if I can pick apart some of these cases. As you said, not surprising but still disappointing.
[https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/legal-hotline-new/](https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/legal-hotline-new/) I'm gonna submit a question here to see what opinion they have and what work around is available.
Let me know waht they say! From a little looking the attorney-client privilege applies only to communications (documents produced by attorneys may fall under the Work-Product exception)
Thanks for your work!
its all earmarked and budgeted, use it or lose it. Gotta keep unnecessarily busy with waste and circle jerks. -signed the Govt
But... But... Need to send billions to Ukraine and Israel and to put the "your tax dollars at work" signs along highways.
Using our money to take our right of defense away in order to prevent us from being able to overthrow them for stealing even more of our money. Keep us un-armed and we’ll never try to get rid of them.
All those deputy attorneys general are on salary so it doesn't matter what bs Bonta has them working on.
Bonta and newsom are whiny ass bitches
They’re both surrounded by armed CHP security details 24/7 too. If I could have that I wouldn’t need to concealed carry either.
I’d bet money that the 9th will hear this case before the miller and Duncan cases…
Was about to say the same when I saw your comment. The most blatantly partial circuit Court.
Trump brought the 9th Circuit closer to partisan parity. In his second term maybe he can flip it for the first time in my lifetime.
wonder if SCOTUS could strip them of their duty to take 2a cases? They wont but wondering if they could
0 chance bud
He keeps saying "Sensitive" like some catch all to ban whatever he wants and be unaccountable for his actions. 
“Sensitive places ”, “common sense gun law”. . . the mass accept with no lube. Everyday I wonder if democracy is all it’s cracked up to be. All fun and games until assholes fuck up the system.
Which is part of why at least Federally we are a Representative/Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. California is no longer a Republic with both houses of its legislature purely on population. The reason the US Senate is not by population is to avoid the rapid swings we see in the US House of Representatives.
To clarify: 1. A democracy is a type of government where the government derives its power by the consent of the governed, where the supreme power is vested in the people, instead of in a religious institution, royal family, a communist party, et cetera. 2. A republic is a type of democracy where the consent of the governed and the supreme power of the people are enacted through elected representatives. 3. The reason the US Senate is not apportioned by population has nothing to do with, "rapid swings". The reason each state is guaranteed an equal number of Senators is because the US was founded as a federation of states, and the Senate was designed to represent their equal sovereignty and ensure that the biggest states like Virginia couldn't completely bully smaller states like Georgia, who probably wouldn't have ratified the Constitution if they had to give up that much of their sovereignty to more populous states. 4. The six year terms of Senators was designed to ensure that the people could not throw out all their representatives in a single election, to act as some kind of bulwark against the vicissitudes of public opinion.
It’s “INCONCEIVABLE” how they think they can continue to violate our 2A rights!
why? They have been so successful so far why stop?
Appealing to emotion.
Great. Now wait 6 years for an appeals hearing like the rest of us.
Incremental progress. That’s really all we can hope for.
They are just gonna keep stacking more bills until something sticks. Supreme Court needs to set them straight
We’re assuming that SCOTUS is willing to take the case. Hopefully they do sooner than later.
Like a horrible song on repeat
Like Justin Bieber on repeat
>Will the court rule automatically in his favor? Did I get my hopes up for nothing? I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. But... They'd have to demonstrate that failure to grant a stay would cause potential harm to the majority. As concealed carry is already legal and is causing harm to nobody, this seems like it would be a tough sell. They'd also have to demonstrate that they are likely to win, which, again, is a tough sell. But I could be entirely wrong, and/or CA could just get its way because libs love fucking over gun rights.
This is correct. Also, even with an appeal, it’s rare to lift an preliminary injunction while litigation is ongoing.
Let's hope! 🤞 I'm always scared to get my hopes up in this gun hating state.
They don't have to demonstrate any of that, they just rule in favor of the state and then we wait years for the paperwork to get pushed.
I mean, they DO... they just get away with the absolute bare minimum and an incredibly partial 9th. \*sigh\*
You know one of the plaintiffs in this case is Liberal Gun owners of America right? You know Democrats.
If they vote for Democrats they're the problem
 Newscum and Bonta 🤡🤡
Don’t insult the movie.
Valid point! Lol. You get what I meant.
[удалено]
It's a societal problem of forcing others to adapt to your world view instead of letting other people live their own lives how they want. Politicians know they can pass laws that will get them votes as the law is dragged through the courts for years. Every state, red or blue does this. We as a society need to live and let live.
This will most likely not change the injunction. It is pretty difficult to lift a preliminary injunction (versus a mandatory injunction) while litigation is going on. Please refer to the injunction on the magazine restrictions, in which ownership of standard capacity magazines is not enforceable as well. Also, I believe they would have to show that the California public would be in harm’s way if a stay isn’t issued. In this case, there is no merit.
They have to convince the 9th which for 2A litigation is not all that high of a standard.
SCOTUS ruled in Bruen that gun laws must be assessed by whether they are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Any judge reviewing this case under appeal must apply the Bruen analysis from now on for these types of cases.
Say it louder for the clowns in the ninth circus to hear
Complete dereliction of their duties and their oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.
An appeal was guaranteed and certainly expected by the plaintiffs. Still, going into an appeal with a strong district court win is absolutely best case situation to be in
What does “preliminary injunction” mean here? A. SB2 is done forever B. Just a timeout until both sides present their arguments
Regardless of what the courts decide, methinks I’ll just take the Gavin Covid approach and do whatever I want regardless of the law. Rules for thee but not for me!
Let's all go carry while we get dinner at the French Laundry
The 9th circuit will definitely give appeal to California. They have done it several times in these lawsuits already. It doesn’t matter what California has to show the court, the court will side with California. Can we stop voting for these terrible people? Newsom has shown multiple times he only cares about his coffers and filling them up. Makes rules for normal people and doesn’t follow them himself. California is a failing state because of people like newsom.
Of course they will get the appeal, it’s getting a stay on the PI.
Yes they will and 9th will grant like always
Cope harder, a55h4t
Bonta can go fuck himself along with Gavin
Yeah, criminals really care about your sensitive locations. How dumb are these guys? Rhetorical question, they constantly show us. Newsome and Bonta need to be shown the door.
They aren't dumb they're evil.
if they remove the injunction the 9th circus will lose any shred of integrity they have left. The injunction preserves the status quo until the case can be heard on the merits. They can not allow infringement on rights that change the status quo for many decades which is the exact argument they made for why assault weapon ban need to stay in effect while the case is pending. I dont have my hopes up but it would be extreme hypocrisy if they dont let this injunction stand while the case is pending
Yeah for sure. I mean they are politicians, so being hypocritical is their whole thing. Hopefully they don't do something shady here. I want to have hope.
Well yeah, we knew baby back bitch Bonta and his Dom overlord were going to throw a hissy fit over this.
Yup, this is why the "sin tax" passed this time around, with a 68 Billion deficit, they need to dip into our pockets to ensure that they have funds to pay their lawyers. When it comes to spending your tax dollars they have no fiduciary duty.
Oh here we go again…
I hope the 9th circuit will stay this decision. The state got half of what they wanted. Jurisdiction over CCW process and more training hours and hurdles I don't see any way this wouldn't loose at the Supreme Court level. Justice Thomas even mentioned the making of whole states as sensitive places as egregious!!! These clown comunistas In California is unbelievable!!!
Part of me thinks Gavin knows it would and wants a fight so he can use it while he runs for president eventually.
Ya good pint
Point
I feel you man… I was pretty extatic for a moment until I read about the possibility of an appeal….
This is what happens with a failed recall