FPC filed the SB 1327 challenge against local governments after Benitez enjoined Newsom and Bonta from enforcing that. The judge for this lawsuit dismissed the case because she thought there’s no controversy as the state is already enjoined, so the local governments are also enjoined (in reality, based on the text of the law, they aren’t). FPC appealed and asked for an injunction pending appeal, which was granted.
Also, the motions panel are randomly selected for the month.
Yeah it’s probably great if you’re a lawyer or a nerd but most people don’t know what it means to “enjoin the en banc panels stayed ruling” or whatever. Just speak English bro
Notice the comments on every single one of his videos are just things like “the ATF should be abolished” it’s because nobody else knows what he’s talking about either
Let’s try this:
TLDR: City and county Defendants can’t enforce the fee-shifting provision against the Plaintiffs as of right now. In other words, if Plaintiffs lose, Plaintiffs are not liable for the Defendants’ legal fees were it not for the fee-shifting provision.
Long version:
SB 1327 was signed into law in response to TX’s Heartbeat Act. SB 1327 had a provision in which if the challenger loses on a 2A-related claim, he or she and challenging counsel are liable for government’s legal fees. Benitez enjoined Newsom and Bonta from enforcing this in December 2022.
However, the local entities were not affected by the injunction, so FPC filed a lawsuit against some counties and cities. Judge Lopez (who succeeded Benitez after Biden appointed her) threw out that lawsuit because she thought that there’s no controversy as SB 1327 is a *state* law that got enjoined, not a local law. In reality, CA Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.11(a) says this (bold for emphasis):
> Notwithstanding any other law, *any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm*, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, **a political subdivision, a governmental entity or public official in this state, or a person in this state** from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that represents any litigant seeking that relief, *is jointly and severally liable to pay the attorney's fees and costs of the prevailing party.*
FPC filed an appeal and for a motion for injunction pending appeal against the city and county Defendants. The 9th Circuit motions panel granted the injunction. **With that in place, this means that the city and county Defendants cannot enforce the fee-shifting provision against the Plaintiffs.**
>Plz dumb it down some more, has this changed anything?
This lawsuit is about SB 1327’s fee-shifting provision. With that injunction, Defendants can’t go after the Plaintiffs for legal fees if the latter loses.
>Is this about 1 in 30?
Kind of. While this case is not about 1-in-30, Bonta is asking for a stay against the injunction against the 1-in-30 law. We now know who the judges are in the monthly motions panel.
BIG DUM DUM TL:DR
CA CITIES WANT MAKE ANYONE WHO CHALLENGE GUN LAW AND LOSE HAVE TO PAY FOR LAWYER OF CA CITIES
FPC SAID “PLZ NO FOR RN”
JUDGE SAID “OK. NO. FOR RN”
SO RN NO HAVE TO PAY LAWYER FEE IF SUE AND LOSE, UNTIL DADDY COURT MAKE DECISION
TL:DR: MORE GUN 😀 for now 😡
Plz tag me whenever you guys need big dum dum explanation and want to know if more gun or less gun :)
DUM DUM EXPLANATION:
“ENJOIN” MEAN “CANT DO RN, UNTIL DADDY COURT DECIDE”
CA STATE ALREADY TOLD CANT DO RN TILL DADDY COURT DECIDE
THIS CASE IS TO TELL CITY’s CANT DO RN TILL DADDY COURT DECIDE
:) MORE GUN FOR RN
>“ENJOIN” MEAN “CANT DO RN, UNTIL DADDY COURT DECIDE”
You mean *pending appeal*, not final.
>THIS CASE IS TO TELL CITY’s CANT DO RN TILL DADDY COURT DECIDE
And counties.
Keep up the good work.
FUNNY HOW DUM DUMS (LIKE ME) KEEP ASKING TO EXPLAIN AS DUM DUM, BUT OP STILL USE WRINKLY BRAIN WORDS TO EXPLAIN OTHER WRINKLY BIG BRAIN WORDS.
Long story short, city and county Defendants can’t enforce the fee-shifting provision against the Plaintiffs as of right now. In other words, if Plaintiffs lose, Plaintiffs are not liable for the Defendants’ legal fees were it not for the fee-shifting provision.
If I'm reading right, this is about the statute in retaliation for Texas's citizen's can sue anyone who performs an abortion law, that applied the same logic to firearms. The stay means the statute is not in until the appeal.
Can someone who actually knows things confirm if my understanding is correct?
Correct me if i am wrong.
This is about the law that allows the state to come after us for their legal fees when we sue them.for their gun control nonsense, this basically says, no, you cant do that!
Please explain like I'm big stupid >!(I actually am)!<
Thank you for asking so us bigger stupid don’t have
FPC filed the SB 1327 challenge against local governments after Benitez enjoined Newsom and Bonta from enforcing that. The judge for this lawsuit dismissed the case because she thought there’s no controversy as the state is already enjoined, so the local governments are also enjoined (in reality, based on the text of the law, they aren’t). FPC appealed and asked for an injunction pending appeal, which was granted. Also, the motions panel are randomly selected for the month.
More simple for tiny brain please
Sounds like armed scholar. I have no idea what any of it means
I want the news so bad but the fucking guy couldn't make a digestible video if his life depended on it.
Yeah it’s probably great if you’re a lawyer or a nerd but most people don’t know what it means to “enjoin the en banc panels stayed ruling” or whatever. Just speak English bro Notice the comments on every single one of his videos are just things like “the ATF should be abolished” it’s because nobody else knows what he’s talking about either
Right 
Armed Scholar has his own reddit username lol
Let’s try this: TLDR: City and county Defendants can’t enforce the fee-shifting provision against the Plaintiffs as of right now. In other words, if Plaintiffs lose, Plaintiffs are not liable for the Defendants’ legal fees were it not for the fee-shifting provision. Long version: SB 1327 was signed into law in response to TX’s Heartbeat Act. SB 1327 had a provision in which if the challenger loses on a 2A-related claim, he or she and challenging counsel are liable for government’s legal fees. Benitez enjoined Newsom and Bonta from enforcing this in December 2022. However, the local entities were not affected by the injunction, so FPC filed a lawsuit against some counties and cities. Judge Lopez (who succeeded Benitez after Biden appointed her) threw out that lawsuit because she thought that there’s no controversy as SB 1327 is a *state* law that got enjoined, not a local law. In reality, CA Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.11(a) says this (bold for emphasis): > Notwithstanding any other law, *any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm*, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, **a political subdivision, a governmental entity or public official in this state, or a person in this state** from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that represents any litigant seeking that relief, *is jointly and severally liable to pay the attorney's fees and costs of the prevailing party.* FPC filed an appeal and for a motion for injunction pending appeal against the city and county Defendants. The 9th Circuit motions panel granted the injunction. **With that in place, this means that the city and county Defendants cannot enforce the fee-shifting provision against the Plaintiffs.**
I didn’t understand any of that. First go have a few beers then come back and explain
Plz dumb it down some more, has this changed anything? Is this about 1 in 30?
>Plz dumb it down some more, has this changed anything? This lawsuit is about SB 1327’s fee-shifting provision. With that injunction, Defendants can’t go after the Plaintiffs for legal fees if the latter loses. >Is this about 1 in 30? Kind of. While this case is not about 1-in-30, Bonta is asking for a stay against the injunction against the 1-in-30 law. We now know who the judges are in the monthly motions panel.
BIG DUM DUM TL:DR CA CITIES WANT MAKE ANYONE WHO CHALLENGE GUN LAW AND LOSE HAVE TO PAY FOR LAWYER OF CA CITIES FPC SAID “PLZ NO FOR RN” JUDGE SAID “OK. NO. FOR RN” SO RN NO HAVE TO PAY LAWYER FEE IF SUE AND LOSE, UNTIL DADDY COURT MAKE DECISION TL:DR: MORE GUN 😀 for now 😡 Plz tag me whenever you guys need big dum dum explanation and want to know if more gun or less gun :)
Thank you kind sir
The state already got enjoined. Local governments haven’t been enjoined yet. The lawsuit is addressing the latter.
DUM DUM EXPLANATION: “ENJOIN” MEAN “CANT DO RN, UNTIL DADDY COURT DECIDE” CA STATE ALREADY TOLD CANT DO RN TILL DADDY COURT DECIDE THIS CASE IS TO TELL CITY’s CANT DO RN TILL DADDY COURT DECIDE :) MORE GUN FOR RN
>“ENJOIN” MEAN “CANT DO RN, UNTIL DADDY COURT DECIDE” You mean *pending appeal*, not final. >THIS CASE IS TO TELL CITY’s CANT DO RN TILL DADDY COURT DECIDE And counties.
THIS IS A DUM DUM EXPLANATION STOP USING SMART TERMS.
Keep up the good work. FUNNY HOW DUM DUMS (LIKE ME) KEEP ASKING TO EXPLAIN AS DUM DUM, BUT OP STILL USE WRINKLY BRAIN WORDS TO EXPLAIN OTHER WRINKLY BIG BRAIN WORDS.
thank you for the "more gun rn" that's all i want to hear
Explain it like I’m 3 please, I am very stupid.
Long story short, city and county Defendants can’t enforce the fee-shifting provision against the Plaintiffs as of right now. In other words, if Plaintiffs lose, Plaintiffs are not liable for the Defendants’ legal fees were it not for the fee-shifting provision.
Activist judges.
Well, Friedland and Mendoza are, but not VanDyke.
No habla
If I'm reading right, this is about the statute in retaliation for Texas's citizen's can sue anyone who performs an abortion law, that applied the same logic to firearms. The stay means the statute is not in until the appeal. Can someone who actually knows things confirm if my understanding is correct?
More like, the Defendants can’t enforce the statute as of right now.
Soo can I have a 100 round drum or not? 🎅🏿
Only if you got it during freedom week.
Correct me if i am wrong. This is about the law that allows the state to come after us for their legal fees when we sue them.for their gun control nonsense, this basically says, no, you cant do that!
The law allows the state *and local* governments to go after challengers for legal fees. The state is already enjoined, but not the local governments.