Re: California

126
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:22 pm
highdesert wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:50 pm Newsom, Bonta and a whole stream of CA Democratic politicians attacked Benitez as they do to any judge that finds their precious gun laws unconstitutional. It's emotion and feelings and "I don't like it therefore it must be made illegal". In their world it's all about "ME" and how I feel and fuck gun owners.

Hollywood just feeds it, I've seen more fully automatic weapons in shows and films lately, that must scare the shit out of anti-gunners. If Hollywood cut back on the gun violence it could help reduce the fear of firearms, but Hollywood just looks at revenue and ratings and gun violence is popular.
Hence my past advocacy for attempting to point out that firearm ownership is normal and to demystify firearms for the public. At this point, though, firearm owners are hunkering down, waiting for the disarmament lobby to outlaw or implement barriers to ownership for hardware already possessed, such as braced pistols. Many really are simply waiting for the end.

ETA: Regarding California specifically, even a greater-9th ruling against Bonta, which never would happen, would not stop those who rule from imposing restrictions. The Party is inseparable from firearm prohibition. There is plenty more Democrats and compliant Republicans can do to hamper firearm ownership--legal or not.

Sadly I think you're right, anti-gun feelings are deeply ingrained in CA. 9 Trump judges on the 9th Circuit is good, just not enough in a total pool of 27 circuit judges.

Newsom thinks handing out money will buy him votes in the Recall and National Democrats think the stimulus checks and subsidies, unemployment, rental assistance, health insurance subsidies...will buy them votes in the mid-term election. I'm not convinced of it because many of the recipients don't vote and those that do I doubt that this will change their voting patterns.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

127
A federal appeals court decided Monday to put on hold a judge’s decision to overturn California’s 30-year-old ban on assault weapons, but the legal fight could continue for months and may be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a brief order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Judge Roger T. Benitez’s June 4 decision, in which he likened an AR-15 semiautomatic to a Swiss Army knife and called it “good for both home and battle.”

Benitez’s decision overturning the California ban gave the state 30 days to challenge the decision. The 9th Circuit, acting on a June 10 appeal filed by Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, put Benitez’s ruling on hold pending decisions in other gun cases that are now before the court.

“This leaves our assault weapons laws in effect while appellate proceedings continue,” Bonta said in a tweet. “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.”

The 9th Circuit judges on the panel issuing the stay were Barry G. Silverman, an appointee of President Clinton; Jacqueline Nguyen, an Obama appointee; and Ryan D. Nelson, a Trump appointee.

The order said the stay would be in effect until the 9th Circuit ruled in another case challenging California’s assault weapons regulations. That case also has been put on hold pending a ruling in a lawsuit over California’s ban on large-capacity magazines.

An 11-judge 9th Circuit “en banc” panel is scheduled to hear arguments in that case Tuesday, and the ruling is likely to determine the future of the state’s assault weapons ban. A majority of the judges on the panel are Democratic appointees.

Benitez also was the judge who struck down the voter-approved 2016 ban on large-capacity magazines. A three-judge 9th Circuit panel upheld his decision, but the state successfully sought review by a larger en banc panel. Gov. Gavin Newsom authored the ballot measure banning the magazines when he was the state’s lieutenant governor.

Benitez, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said the assault weapons ban unconstitutionally infringed on the rights of California gun owners and “has had no effect” on curtailing mass shootings.

California is one of seven states and Washington, D.C., that ban assault weapons. The California case is expected to go to the Supreme Court, where a majority of justices are conservative and some have been highly critical of gun regulations.

Twenty-two states, led by Arizona, which is under the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, asked the appeals court to uphold the order against California’s law.

“Calling modern rifles ‘assault weapons’ is a misnomer— they are most often used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like personal protection or target and sport shooting,” the states argued. “There is nothing sinister about citizens keeping or bearing a modern rifle.”

Joining Arizona were Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The Firearms Policy Coalition, which challenged the assault weapons ban, criticized the 9th Circuit for putting Benitez’s decision “on ice” and choosing “government tyranny over human lives and rights.”

“Tens of millions of Californians have suffered under the state’s unconstitutional and oppressive gun control scheme for far too long,” the group said.
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... weapon-ban
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

129
The 9th swings into action, as predicted.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/f ... 1624313372
The district court’s June 4, 2021 order and judgment are stayed pending
resolution of Rupp v. Bonta, No. 19-56004. The stay shall remain in effect until
further order of this court.

Briefing in this appeal is stayed.

Within 14 days of this court’s decision in Rupp v. Bonta, the parties shall file
a status report and may request appropriate relief.

Re: California

130
DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:26 am The 9th swings into action, as predicted.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/f ... 1624313372
The district court’s June 4, 2021 order and judgment are stayed pending
resolution of Rupp v. Bonta, No. 19-56004. The stay shall remain in effect until
further order of this court.

Briefing in this appeal is stayed.

Within 14 days of this court’s decision in Rupp v. Bonta, the parties shall file
a status report and may request appropriate relief.

And Duncan vs Becerra (now Duncan vs Bonita) is also stayed.
This appeal shall be held in abeyance pending the resolution of en banc proceedings and issuance of the mandate in Duncan v. Becerra, Docket No. 19-55376. Submission of this case is vacated until further order of the Court.

Judge Bumatay dissents from this order.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/up ... Duncan.pdf

The Trump appointee on that panel objected.

Stays are not unusual but the 9th interconnected all of these cases. And like a firing squad they'll shoot them down one at a time.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

132
YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:11 am
highdesert wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:53 am The Trump appointee on that panel objected.
That's the only damn thing they are good for.

The Trump appointees are fresh air on the 9th Circuit in terms of firearms cases. I expect that when the Republicans next hold the trifecta that they will finally succeed in breaking up the 9th Circuit which currently has 9 states. Break it up into 3 circuits - CA, HI, Guam and the Marianas in 1; AZ, NV, ID and MT in a 2nd and OR, WA and AK in a 3rd. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd circuits are all small circuits but they get bigger as you go West.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

136
The state is making the case that commonly "owned" is not the same as commonly "used" so should be remanded. The state is also claiming lawful use must be "self defense" even thought case law says "lawful purposes like self defense."

Somehow, in their inability to read, they missed that part where NYSRPA does not bring a new review standard, just affirms what was already in Heller. NYSRPA even says just that. It's even written in English rather than Pig Latin.

I guess this will be fucked in court for another 5 years before it lands back at SCOTUS.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

137
featureless wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 10:00 am The state is making the case that commonly "owned" is not the same as commonly "used" so should be remanded. The state is also claiming lawful use must be "self defense" even thought case law says "lawful purposes like self defense."

Somehow, in their inability to read, they missed that part where NYSRPA does not bring a new review standard, just affirms what was already in Heller. NYSRPA even says just that. It's even written in English rather than Pig Latin.

I guess this will be fucked in court for another 5 years before it lands back at SCOTUS.
Delay until they have a democrat dominated scotus.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

139
So it's back to the Southern District of CA, does it return to Benitez or to the chief judge Sabraw or get assigned to a new judge? And after the district judge rules, does the AG appeal to the 9th Circuit again and it goes en banc and ultimately ends up at SCOTUS a second time? SCOTUS will be really pissed if it comes back a second time. Hopefully saner minds prevail, but the anti-gun ideologues and law enforcement are powerful in CA.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

141
What I find most infuriating about this is that the text, history, tradition (THT) standard of review was established in Heller. CA9 and other appeals courts incorrectly adopted the dissenting opinions two-step giving us intermediate scrutiny. NYSRPA repeatedly notes that the THT standard was in Heller and that has not changed. Miller was originally decided using THT as well as the two-step at the District Court since the District Court is bound to using the same legal standard as the appeals court. The original CA9 panel also ruled for Miller using THT standard. The en banc panel, of course, applied the two-step and state deference. Then, SCOTUS GVR'd Miller and now CA9 has, once again, deferred to the state's wishes and bullshit reasoning that they couldn't possibly have known THT was the standard. Do over.

This shit was appropriately decided at the District Court. Now, because the state is disingenuous about laws and because CA9 will do everything possible to defer to the state, we get a do over precisely because of the dishonesty of both the state and CA9's reading of Heller and now NYSRPA. And the Dems accuse the repugs of authoritarianism. Pot meet kettle.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

143
CDFingers wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:25 pm THT worked great until the American Taliban wanted to ban abortion. Not a strong argument any more.

CDFingers
Agree and disagree. Heller (required THT) and McDonald (applied 2A against the states) were decided well before the hostile takeover. Roe should have been codified long ago so we wouldn't be in this situation. But Dems have made other things priorities and it's easier to just blame Trump.

Overturning of Roe is a fucking tragedy. But CA's continued resistance to an enumerated right and persecutory stance toward those who engage that right won't make it better.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

144
featureless wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:09 pm
CDFingers wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:25 pm THT worked great until the American Taliban wanted to ban abortion. Not a strong argument any more.

CDFingers
Agree and disagree. Heller (required THT) and McDonald (applied 2A against the states) were decided well before the hostile takeover. Roe should have been codified long ago so we wouldn't be in this situation. But Dems have made other things priorities and it's easier to just blame Trump.

Overturning of Roe is a fucking tragedy. But CA's continued resistance to an enumerated right and persecutory stance toward those who engage that right won't make it better.

Agree, THT was Heller but the circuit courts' of appeal wanted to get around it, so they adopted the scrutiny analysis so the states always won. CA and other states will try other tactics to ensure they don't lose again in federal court. So until then CA will delay and obfuscate, a term that became popular for all those involved in the Watergate coverup.

Those crying over the Dobbs decision are saying that Kavanaugh and others lied at their confirmation hearings, no SCOTUS nominee is going to talk about how they'd rule, that prejudges cases whether they are Republican or Democratic nominees. A court decision is settled law only until a new bench of judges comes along. Roe should have been codified in federal law by Democrats decades ago, but gun control was more important to them.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

145
highdesert wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 6:42 am
featureless wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:09 pm
CDFingers wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:25 pm THT worked great until the American Taliban wanted to ban abortion. Not a strong argument any more.

CDFingers
Agree and disagree. Heller (required THT) and McDonald (applied 2A against the states) were decided well before the hostile takeover. Roe should have been codified long ago so we wouldn't be in this situation. But Dems have made other things priorities and it's easier to just blame Trump.

Overturning of Roe is a fucking tragedy. But CA's continued resistance to an enumerated right and persecutory stance toward those who engage that right won't make it better.

Agree, THT was Heller but the circuit courts' of appeal wanted to get around it, so they adopted the scrutiny analysis so the states always won. CA and other states will try other tactics to ensure they don't lose again in federal court. So until then CA will delay and obfuscate, a term that became popular for all those involved in the Watergate coverup.

Those crying over the Dobbs decision are saying that Kavanaugh and others lied at their confirmation hearings, no SCOTUS nominee is going to talk about how they'd rule, that prejudges cases whether they are Republican or Democratic nominees. A court decision is settled law only until a new bench of judges comes along. Roe should have been codified in federal law by Democrats decades ago, but gun control was more important to them.
Idiots should have known they were not being honest knowing their religious background. There should have been an understanding that putting more people on the court with a certain religious background wouldn’t be a good idea. We have a catholic court, expect rulings that reflect their religious background. Fools.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California "assault weapon" ban challenge--Miller v. Bonta

150
highdesert wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:38 pm That's good news, I hope Benitez rules quickly. Bonta will appeal and we'll see how long it languishes at the 9th Circuit before we get decisions. I hope Benitez also gets Duncan v Bonta (magazine size restrictions).
He should since Duncan was his.

I'm hoping for an injunction. CA9 will overrule and then the injunction would be appealed to SCOTUS while these two cases meander for 10 more fucking years back to SCOTUS. What a collosal waste of time and money.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests