sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 10:00 pm

featureless wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:55 pm Appeal to CA9 filed. That didn't take long.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .150.0.pdf

Fuck Bonta. What a fucking waste of taxpayer money.

As bad as republicans when it comes to their pet agenda.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who enforces the state's laws, plans to seek a stay while he appeals the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. He said Californians need to be kept safe from weapons enhancements that are "designed" to cause mass casualties. "The Supreme Court was clear that Bruen did not create a regulatory straitjacket for states--and we believe that the district court got this wrong," Bonta said. "We will move quickly to correct this incredibly dangerous mistake."

Benitez delayed enforcing his injunction against the law for 10 days to give Bonta time to seek a stay. The judge had struck down the magazines ban in March 2019, but the 9th Circuit overturned him in Nov. 2021. The Supreme Court vacated the appeals court ruling and ordered new proceedings consistent with the Bruen decision.

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, in a statement, said Friday's decision reflects the "sea change in the way courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws."

featureless wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 11:04 pm Cute that Bonta forgot to include the part where SCOTUS GVRd the en banc panel's ruling.

And poor, poor outraged Newsom's tweet about this has him frothing and sounding more and more like that orange asshole. Same cloth.

Even before the Bruen decision, Benitez had rejected the validity of California’s magazine ban, writing in his 2019 decision that the law effectively made criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. “Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few madmen with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals,” Benitez wrote at the time. “Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law.”

Benitez’s decision on Friday — emboldened by Bruen — was even more forceful in its rejection of the magazine ban than his 2019 decision. The judge said California’s 10-round limit was without precedent, “arbitrary,” “capricious” and “extreme.” Under the ban, “the previously law-abiding California citizen who buys and keeps at her bedside a nationally popular Glock 17 (with its standard 17-round magazine) becomes the criminal,” Benitez wrote in his decision, “because the State dictates that a gun with a 17-round magazine is not well-suited for home defense.”

“Indeed, many of the nation’s best-selling handguns and rifles come standard with magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, and firearms equipped with such magazines are safely possessed by law-abiding citizens in the vast majority of states,” the plaintiffs argued. “The reason for the popularity of these magazines is straightforward: In a confrontation with a violent attacker, having enough ammunition can be the difference between life and death.”

But Gov. Gavin Newsom said that with his latest ruling, Benitez was no longer “even pretending” to be an impartial jurist. “This is politics, pure and simple,” he said in a statement.

Judges Ikuta, R. Nelson, Bumatay, and VanDyke dissent from the granting
of the administrative stay

While our rules may leave room for such an unusual step, discretion and wisdom counsel against it. Indeed, to my knowledge, no en banc panel of this court has ever handled an emergency administrative stay motion as an initial matter. And the majority cites no precedent otherwise. So I’m left wondering why we rush to do something so unorthodox.

The story of the Second Amendment in this circuit has been a consistent tale
of our court versus the Supreme Court and the Constitution. That tale continues
today, and will continue as long as a number of my colleagues retain the discretion
to twist the law and procedure to reach their desired conclusion. As uncomfortable
as it is to keep pointing that out, it is important the public keeps being reminded of
that fact.

The stay does not apply to the district court’s order enjoining Section 32310(c) and (d) for large capacity magazines that were lawfully acquired before the district court’s order.

featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 9:49 am The shits is, we've won this case 3 times now, 4 if you count the GVR that vacated the original en banc loss. This case has already been to SCOTUS. It's a travesty that a constitutional matter (and I'm not limiting this to magazines) should be tied up in court since 2017 with 3 legit wins and one trip to SCOTUS then the one panel that handed out the vacated loss pulls this shit to do it again. They had their chance on remand but punted back to district court. Yet here we are.

sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:02 am

featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 9:49 am The shits is, we've won this case 3 times now, 4 if you count the GVR that vacated the original en banc loss. This case has already been to SCOTUS. It's a travesty that a constitutional matter (and I'm not limiting this to magazines) should be tied up in court since 2017 with 3 legit wins and one trip to SCOTUS then the one panel that handed out the vacated loss pulls this shit to do it again. They had their chance on remand but punted back to district court. Yet here we are.

This is why I think our system including legal is irredeemably broken. A court system that is so politically corrupted that it won’t accept a legal outcome is no different than a party and candidate that won’t accept the outcome of an election.

The story of the Second Amendment in this circuit has been a consistent tale of our court versus the Supreme Court and the Constitution. That tale continues today, and will continue as long as a number of my colleagues retain the discretion to twist the law and procedure to reach their desired conclusion. As uncomfortable as it is to keep pointing that out, it is important the public keeps being reminded of that fact.

highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:22 am

sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:02 am

featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 9:49 am The shits is, we've won this case 3 times now, 4 if you count the GVR that vacated the original en banc loss. This case has already been to SCOTUS. It's a travesty that a constitutional matter (and I'm not limiting this to magazines) should be tied up in court since 2017 with 3 legit wins and one trip to SCOTUS then the one panel that handed out the vacated loss pulls this shit to do it again. They had their chance on remand but punted back to district court. Yet here we are.

This is why I think our system including legal is irredeemably broken. A court system that is so politically corrupted that it won’t accept a legal outcome is no different than a party and candidate that won’t accept the outcome of an election.

Yes, I expect that the four dissenters in this order will be the same in the final opinion of this en banc panel. Judge VanDyke is correct in his dissent on this order.

The story of the Second Amendment in this circuit has been a consistent tale of our court versus the Supreme Court and the Constitution. That tale continues today, and will continue as long as a number of my colleagues retain the discretion to twist the law and procedure to reach their desired conclusion. As uncomfortable as it is to keep pointing that out, it is important the public keeps being reminded of that fact.

We've been led along the path of hoping that the 9th Circuit changes, but it never has and probably never will.

sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:02 am A court system that is so politically corrupted that it won’t accept a legal outcome is no different than a party and candidate that won’t accept the outcome of an election.

featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:53 am

sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:02 am A court system that is so politically corrupted that it won’t accept a legal outcome is no different than a party and candidate that won’t accept the outcome of an election.

Yup. If you want to ensure mass instability, make it so the people don't trust the system because it has become totally corrupt. Remind us again why we have laws if the government doesn't follow them? Is the expectation that only the lower cast (because that's where we're headed) must follow the law?

highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 11:38 am Gun owners in CA are a minority and we're treated as such. In a democracy the majority rules, so to become a majority we have to convince people to change their votes. We're up against a powerful gun control/anti-gun lobby in CA who lump all of us gun owners together and we're dismissed as Republicans. The CA Democratic big donors including the Hollywood moguls can afford to pay for armed security, if they want a gun permit I assume that can be arranged quietly. A lot of actors own guns, but not all of them live in CA.
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-peop ... rity-lists

sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:19 pm

highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 11:38 am Gun owners in CA are a minority and we're treated as such. In a democracy the majority rules, so to become a majority we have to convince people to change their votes. We're up against a powerful gun control/anti-gun lobby in CA who lump all of us gun owners together and we're dismissed as Republicans. The CA Democratic big donors including the Hollywood moguls can afford to pay for armed security, if they want a gun permit I assume that can be arranged quietly. A lot of actors own guns, but not all of them live in CA.
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-peop ... rity-lists

I have a vague recollection of how proud people were of the rights of the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This was proudly told to me by all my peers as an immigrant in Massachusetts in the 1960’s. They naturally assumed I came from a place where minorities were regularly denied their rights. I guess that’s another myth we can put in the dust bin.

highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:37 pm

sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:19 pm

highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 11:38 am Gun owners in CA are a minority and we're treated as such. In a democracy the majority rules, so to become a majority we have to convince people to change their votes. We're up against a powerful gun control/anti-gun lobby in CA who lump all of us gun owners together and we're dismissed as Republicans. The CA Democratic big donors including the Hollywood moguls can afford to pay for armed security, if they want a gun permit I assume that can be arranged quietly. A lot of actors own guns, but not all of them live in CA.
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-peop ... rity-lists

I have a vague recollection of how proud people were of the rights of the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This was proudly told to me by all my peers as an immigrant in Massachusetts in the 1960’s. They naturally assumed I came from a place where minorities were regularly denied their rights. I guess that’s another myth we can put in the dust bin.

Yes, the myths cultures perpetuate. Thankfully there is a constitutional amendment that we can claim in our defense, like some claim Americans freedom of religion, of the press, speech, assembly... California politicians aren't fully acquainted with 2A, but court challenges will hopefully get them there eventually.

featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:48 pm

highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:37 pm

sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:19 pm

highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 11:38 am Gun owners in CA are a minority and we're treated as such. In a democracy the majority rules, so to become a majority we have to convince people to change their votes. We're up against a powerful gun control/anti-gun lobby in CA who lump all of us gun owners together and we're dismissed as Republicans. The CA Democratic big donors including the Hollywood moguls can afford to pay for armed security, if they want a gun permit I assume that can be arranged quietly. A lot of actors own guns, but not all of them live in CA.
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-peop ... rity-lists

I have a vague recollection of how proud people were of the rights of the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This was proudly told to me by all my peers as an immigrant in Massachusetts in the 1960’s. They naturally assumed I came from a place where minorities were regularly denied their rights. I guess that’s another myth we can put in the dust bin.

Yes, the myths cultures perpetuate. Thankfully there is a constitutional amendment that we can claim in our defense, like some claim Americans freedom of religion, of the press, speech, assembly... California politicians aren't fully acquainted with 2A, but court challenges will hopefully get them there eventually.

The one that fucking kills me is the new microstamping law. They don't give a shit if it's unconstitutional. The old unconstitutional microstamping law isn't even cold yet and they pass another.

highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 2:59 pm

featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:48 pm

highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:37 pm

sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:19 pm

I have a vague recollection of how proud people were of the rights of the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This was proudly told to me by all my peers as an immigrant in Massachusetts in the 1960’s. They naturally assumed I came from a place where minorities were regularly denied their rights. I guess that’s another myth we can put in the dust bin.

Yes, the myths cultures perpetuate. Thankfully there is a constitutional amendment that we can claim in our defense, like some claim Americans freedom of religion, of the press, speech, assembly... California politicians aren't fully acquainted with 2A, but court challenges will hopefully get them there eventually.

The one that fucking kills me is the new microstamping law. They don't give a shit if it's unconstitutional. The old unconstitutional microstamping law isn't even cold yet and they pass another.

The Democrats who control the CA Legislature along with Newsom, do it just because with a supermajority they can do it any time they want. They're like of bunch of bullies drawing a line in the sand and daring courts to overturn the second microstamping law.

featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:48 pm

highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:37 pm

sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:19 pm

highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 11:38 am Gun owners in CA are a minority and we're treated as such. In a democracy the majority rules, so to become a majority we have to convince people to change their votes. We're up against a powerful gun control/anti-gun lobby in CA who lump all of us gun owners together and we're dismissed as Republicans. The CA Democratic big donors including the Hollywood moguls can afford to pay for armed security, if they want a gun permit I assume that can be arranged quietly. A lot of actors own guns, but not all of them live in CA.
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-peop ... rity-lists

I have a vague recollection of how proud people were of the rights of the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This was proudly told to me by all my peers as an immigrant in Massachusetts in the 1960’s. They naturally assumed I came from a place where minorities were regularly denied their rights. I guess that’s another myth we can put in the dust bin.

Yes, the myths cultures perpetuate. Thankfully there is a constitutional amendment that we can claim in our defense, like some claim Americans freedom of religion, of the press, speech, assembly... California politicians aren't fully acquainted with 2A, but court challenges will hopefully get them there eventually.

The one that fucking kills me is the new microstamping law. They don't give a shit if it's unconstitutional. The old unconstitutional microstamping law isn't even cold yet and they pass another.