I wonder if the forum lawyers would be interested in taking a look at the two separate cases and see if the difference in opinions regarding the injunctions was more likely due to the court or the case as filed by the plaintiffs. I'm adding links to the two cases here to make searching easier. Both sites have the additional filings submitted in their respective cases. The site for the Wiese case doesn't have it listed, but it is easily found (or email me and I'll send it).

http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/wiese_v_Becerra


One case cited in the Wiese case was Mugler v. Kansas (1867). This was one that allowed destruction of alcohol producing equipment. I find it strange, as people would be able to build replacements. Mentioning it in this case is odd in that if the magazines were removed, then the case overturned, there would still be existing laws that would prohibit people from replacing them.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

The AG doesn't seem to be aware that judges strike down initiatives approved by voters all the time, even Constitutional Amendments!

Yes, why we still have the Astrodome in Houston.

CW

SigSAC, I would note that in one case the plaintiffs were asking for a permanent injunction, and in the other case the plaintiffs were asking for a temporary injunction that would only last until the court could rule on the merits of the case itself.