9th Circuit

[pmclaine]

Rumor has it they have affirmed the militia clause means the People should have access to arms suitable for service in a militia...

This in regards to a confiscation case.

I'm assuming California.

What is the temp in Hell, Mrs Clinton?

 

[pmclaine]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nt-decision-blocking-california-ammo-ban.html

 

[Fig]

I suspect treachery.

 

[CSTactical]

It's a temporary win, but I'll take it for now.

 

[Fig]

Brother, where you are anything that’s not actively eroding your rights is a win.

 

[flyer]

While that is nice, it's only a preliminary injunction, plenty of chances for it to get screwed up at trial or on appeal.

The sad thing is how many blatantly unconstitutional laws don't get the injunction. In those cases it can take a decade to get our rights restored (if ever).

 

[johnnycat]

Dissenting from the ruling, Judge John Clifford Wallace said that evidence provided by the state, including studies and surveys showing the use of large-capacity magazines increase the lethality of gun violence, “was more than sufficient to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.”

What is this garbage and what does this have to do with whether a law is constitutional or not? I'm sick of these touchy feely judges ruling by their ideas for society rather than interpreting laws passed by duly elected legislators.

 

[pmclaine]

Dissenting from the ruling, Judge John Clifford Wallace said that evidence provided by the state, including studies and surveys showing the use of large-capacity magazines increase the lethality of gun violence, “was more than sufficient to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.”

What is this garbage and what does this have to do with whether a law is constitutional or not? I'm sick of these touchy feely judges ruling by their ideas for society rather than interpreting laws passed by duly elected legislators.

Forget the laws by duly elected legislators just read the Second Amendment and realize its intended fro the law abiding not those intent on "gun violence".

Tired of these dicks treating society to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Tims]

The ninth will reverse this decision through en banc like they did in the Peruta case.

 

[flyer]

The ninth will reverse this decision through en banc like they did in the Peruta case.

Not likely.

The trial will continue, if the judge is good to his word, he will decide in our favor on second amendment grounds in the district court, then the state will appeal bringing it to the ninth circuit where it will probably get handed to an anti-gun judge who will rule against us, then we will request en banc review or, if the judge is reasonable and affirms the lower Court ruling, some anti-gun judge will call for en banc to try and screw with us again.

If we win in the ninth, I doubt California will file for cert. over magazine limits, firstly because it's stupid and secondly because they would likely lose.

The upside is if California goes full retard on this while we have a solid pro-constitution majority in SCOTUS, we should get a whole bunch of iron clad precedents that will serve us well for decades or more.

 

[eklarsen]

This is a huge win, finally someone read the constitution.

 

[MosesTheTank]

...
The upside is if California goes full retard on this while we have a solid pro-constitution majority in SCOTUS, we should get a whole bunch of iron clad precedents that will serve us well for decades or more.

This is an interesting point. The CA law that is being challenged was voted in before Trump was in office and everyone was sure Hillary would win. They were equally sure the NRA would challenge the law. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the supreme bench was not even imaginable back then. I think that if they had known this in 2016 the law would not have been put on a ballot. The moment Kennedy made his announcement I thought every anti-constitutionalist in the US was given pause for fear of their cause making it to SCOTUS, and not just the 2A.

Random thoughts...

This was just a 3 judge panel, not the 9th en banc.

The 9th constantly makes drunken rulings they know will be overturned. They don't care as they know SCOTUS can't catch all of them

The dissenting judge (John Wallace) was born in 1928... The wording of his dissent is maybe the best example of legislating from the bench I have ever seen.

Wallace wrote that the confiscation law could be upheld based on some statistics supplied by one of Michael Bloomberg's organizations. Yet the district court had specifically explained why those statistics lacked reliability and credibility: they were "incomplete studies from unreliable sources upon which experts base speculative explanation and predictions."

The 5th Amendment challenge is insane. That anyone on the planet agrees with the idea that one is not being deprived of property because they can just move is out of state is not grounded in this world, IMHO

All the 9th did did was allow the district court to hear the case and make a ruling the full Circuit court can overturn. CA may petition the full circuit for an en banc hearing. The 9th Circuit is very hostile to the 2A en banc. Then we may be off to SCOTUS several months forward where, God willing, Kavanaugh will be be waiting. Recall that in Heller Kavanaugh's dissent was, in part, that MSRs were in common use. Well, so are magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. CA would get crushed.

Personally, I find Heller to be weak in that it falls short of the intended purpose of the 2A and that it may actually preclude newly evolved weaponry from being available to the public. We need an NFA challenge to surface.

 

[flyer]

No, the motive behind the law was anti-gun liberal virtue signaling. It didn't matter who would be in SCOTUS. They don't think that strategically.

For example, I just saw an old quote by DeLeon claiming a "ghost gun" could empty a .30 caliber 30 round clip in half a second. That's 3,600 rpm and it wasn't a mini-gun, just a semi-auto AR 80% build.

If they were strategic, they would learn not to say stupid shit.

If our antis were less stupid, their BS wouldn't pile up so fast but they might be able to make it stick better.

California is screwed either way so I'm looking to get out.

 

[Tims]

Yes likely. A 3 judge panel ruled in our favor. When the en banc hearing is called the ninth will Judge shop and stack the deck with 11 anti 2A judges. Its happened before, it will happen again.

Not likely.

The trial will continue, if the judge is good to his word, he will decide in our favor on second amendment grounds in the district court, then the state will appeal bringing it to the ninth circuit where it will probably get handed to an anti-gun judge who will rule against us, then we will request en banc review or, if the judge is reasonable and affirms the lower Court ruling, some anti-gun judge will call for en banc to try and screw with us again.

If we win in the ninth, I doubt California will file for cert. over magazine limits, firstly because it's stupid and secondly because they would likely lose.

The upside is if California goes full retard on this while we have a solid pro-constitution majority in SCOTUS, we should get a whole bunch of iron clad precedents that will serve us well for decades or more.

 

[MosesTheTank]

Yes likely. A 3 judge panel ruled in our favor. When the en banc hearing is called the ninth will Judge shop and stack the deck with 11 anti 2A judges. Its happened before, it will happen again.

Yep, this is happening as we type out this thread

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/st...-circuit-court-nominee-ryan-bounds/795662002/

 

[Fig]

Wow. What a couple of cunts.

 

[flyer]

We are not there yet, there are three big steps between now and the possibility of an en banc hearing. Those steps are a decision at the district court level, then an appeal and then an appelate decision. All of that has to happen before the possibility of an en banc hearing.

Then guess what, the issue at hand won't be a preliminary injunction which is what the recent decision was about so there is no way to bring this decision en banc.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

From what I understand the 9th circuit's days may be numbered. Either it gets broken up or Trump gets to appoint something like 66 percent of its judges due to retirements. They need to be split into 2 or 3.

That will be a big deal... On par with SCOTUS appointments. The breakup would be... Yugggge!

That court has been a festering pustule for 30 years... Time to lance it.

Cheers, Sirhr